CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bradfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, assess risks and learn from accidents. Medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs, although agency staff were being used during recruitment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff had suitable training and supervision. People were supported with choices, food, healthcare and healthy lifestyles.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. Staff supported people's privacy, communication, independence, relationships and involvement in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed when people's needs changed. People had activities based on their interests, support to use the community and accessible ways to understand information and make complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive management, staff involvement and systems to check and improve quality. People and relatives were involved in the running of the home through meetings, surveys and other activities.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a small number of records and staffing points to keep under review.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 28 November 2018. The inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, followed three people's care records and checked a range of other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and people received kind and personalised support.
The home was using agency staff while recruiting, although it used the same agency staff to provide continuity. Inspectors also found one care plan had not yet been updated with dietician guidance, but this was corrected immediately. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good.
Safe medicines and risk support
Medicines were managed safely, with trained staff and checks of their competence. Staff supported people to take part in activities while reducing known risks.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) included a photo of the person and information about any allergies which supported their medicines to be administered safely.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training relevant to learning disabilities, autism and health needs. They also had regular supervision and worked well as a team.
“Staff continued to have skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and support.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw trusting relationships and staff who knew people's needs and interests. People's privacy, dignity, communication needs and independence were respected.
“We observed positive interactions between people and staff, staff knew people well and had built trusting relationships.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to enjoy activities they chose, develop new skills and take part in community life.
“Staff identified that activities were an integral part of people's lives and were led by people's choices.” from the report
Positive management and involvement
The management culture was described as positive. People, relatives and staff were given ways to influence the home and its wider organisation.
“The culture of the home remained positive and enabled people to live how they wanted to.” from the report
Agency staff during recruitment
minorThe home was using agency staff while recruiting. It used the same agency staff to help provide continuity, but families may want to ask about the current staffing position.
“The registered manager told us they were using agency staff whilst they were recruiting new staff.” from the report
One care plan was not up to date
minorInspectors found that one person's care plan did not yet include dietician guidance. The guidance was updated immediately after the issue was identified.
“The compliance director visited the home regularly and identified that one person's care plan hadn't been updated with guidance from the dietician.” from the report
- 01Are you still using agency staff, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs and routines?
- 02How often are care plans checked and updated after advice from dieticians or other healthcare professionals?
- 03How would you support my relative to make everyday choices and remain as independent as possible?
- 04Which activities and community opportunities are available that match my relative's interests?
- 05How can my relative and our family raise a concern or make a complaint in a way they can understand?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous Good ratings were reviewed as remaining Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Bradfield House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.