CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bradley Apartments
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines and safeguarding processes, and gaps in consent records and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 December 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led because concerns had been raised about safeguarding and the quality of care. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had enough staff, and staff knew people's risks and needs. People were treated with privacy and dignity. Infection control was mostly effective, although some parts of the building needed refurbishment to make cleaning easier.
There were important shortfalls. Medicines records and stock checks were not always reliable. Safeguarding concerns and incidents were not always investigated promptly or thoroughly. Records did not always show that decisions about people's capacity, consent and restrictions had been made lawfully.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published on 30 June 2021, to Requires Improvement. The home was found to be in breach of four regulations. The provider was required to send an improvement plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress.
Staffing and training
The home had enough staff to keep people safe. Recruitment checks, induction and staff training were in place.
“The provider recruited staff safely. This included carrying out relevant checks prior to staff starting employment.” from the report
Knowing people's needs
Staff could describe people's known risks and how they supported them. Care records included communication preferences and day-to-day choices.
“Staff were able to tell us about people's known risks and how they supported people to keep them safe.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
Inspectors saw staff respecting people's privacy and dignity while providing care and support.
“We observed staff respecting people's privacy and dignity when providing care and support.” from the report
Health support
Staff worked with health professionals and care records described people's health needs and support to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff regularly worked with other health professionals due to the complexity of the care they were providing.” from the report
Food and personal choice
People were positive about the food. Their likes and dislikes were recorded, and they were involved in planning menus.
“We also saw that people were consulted in menu planning for the week.” from the report
Medicines
seriousMedicines were not always recorded, ordered or checked safely. Some people had missed medicines because stock ran out, increasing the risk of harm.
“There had been recent incidents where people had missed being given some of their medicines due to stock not being ordered on time and stock running out.” from the report
Safeguarding and investigations
seriousSafeguarding concerns involving alleged abuse were not always reported, recorded or investigated promptly. A staff member under police investigation was allowed to work with vulnerable people.
“The provider failed to operate effective safeguarding processes by allowing a staff member who was under police criminal investigation to work with people who may be vulnerable.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousRecords did not consistently show mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. This included decisions about physical intervention and chemical restraint.
“Assessment of people's capacity to make decisions where restrictions had been applied were not always completed.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe home's audits and monitoring systems did not reliably find or resolve problems. Actions were not always completed promptly or assigned to someone accountable.
“The provider's systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service had not always been effective because they had failed to identify the issues we found during our inspection.” from the report
Communication
needs fixingHandover records were not always completed, so important information about people's needs and observation requirements might not reach staff consistently.
“Communication about people's needs and risks and how to manage these was inconsistent.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure medicines are ordered on time, stock is accurate and every administration is recorded?
- 02How are safeguarding concerns, alleged abuse, accidents and incidents now reported, investigated and reviewed?
- 03How do you record mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions, particularly when physical intervention or chemical restraint is considered?
- 04Who is responsible for completing improvement actions, and how does management check that they have been completed?
- 05How will you provide people with more opportunities to go out, where this is part of their wishes and support plan?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2023 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.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found no evidence that the specific safety concern put people at risk, and the previous Good rating remains.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 1 September 2022. It followed notification of an incident in which a person using the service died. The report says this inspection did not examine the circumstances of that incident because initial inquiries were continuing.
Inspectors looked specifically at how the home assessed, monitored and managed risks to people's safety. They spoke with six staff members and reviewed care records, risk assessments, environmental checks, staff training records and management documents.
Inspectors found that staff knew people well, managed risks and supported people safely while respecting their rights. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the specific concern. One risk assessment needed more information, which the provider added during the inspection.
This was not a full inspection. The home was inspected but not rated, and its previous overall Good rating, published on 2 July 2021, remains unchanged.
Staff understood people's risks
Staff knew people well and understood what action to take to prevent or reduce risks.
“Staff knew people well and what action to take to prevent or minimise risks.” from the report
Safety checks
The provider carried out regular fire and premises checks and acted promptly when needed.
“They carried out regular fire and premises safety checks and took prompt action where required.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The manager and psychology team reviewed accidents and incidents for patterns, with the aim of reducing repeat risks.
“The registered manager and in-house psychology team identified any patterns and trends to keep people safe and reduce the risk of reoccurrence.” from the report
People felt safe
People were involved in reviewing their care plans and risk assessments and told inspectors they felt safe.
“People were involved in reviewing their care plans and risk assessments and told us they felt safe.” from the report
Risk assessment needed more detail
needs fixingOne person's risk assessment did not initially contain enough information for staff. The provider added the information during the inspection.
“One person's risk assessment required additional information for staff, which the provider added during the inspection.” from the report
- 01What extra information was added to the risk assessment during the inspection?
- 02How do you check that staff understand and follow each person's current risk assessments?
- 03What changes were made after the incident mentioned in the report?
- 04How are accident and incident patterns shared with staff and used to reduce the risk of things happening again?
- 05When is the next comprehensive inspection expected to assess all five key questions?
This was a targeted inspection of assessing, monitoring and managing risks to keep people safe; all key questions will be assessed at the next comprehensive inspection, and the previous ratings carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 2022 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 Bradley Apartments
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 May 2014.
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
12 live-in carers within about an hour of North East Lincolnshire
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 £980 to £1,350 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.