CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bradley House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, risks were assessed and staffing levels matched people's assessed needs. Medicine practices and some safety monitoring were not always in line with best practice.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a current rating for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a current rating for Caring. Inspectors observed respectful interactions and found a positive, caring culture.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a current rating for Responsive. People were consulted about their wishes and knew how to complain.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear leadership and an open, supportive culture. However, quality audit actions were not always revisited and signed off.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Bradley House Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found caring, safe support, but medicine records and some improvement checks needed attention.
Inspectors visited without notice on 4 and 5 December 2023. They spoke with 14 people, two relatives and eight staff. They reviewed care, medicine and recruitment records, inspected the building and observed care and infection control.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good, improving from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Well-led remained Good. People said they felt safe and well cared for, and inspectors found enough safely recruited staff.
There were some shortfalls. Medicine storage and recording were not always in line with best practice. Accident and incident information was not always analysed, some safety checks were not routine, and quality action plans were not always revisited. The provider acted during the inspection and received recommendations to improve.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for people's assessed needs. Recruitment checks had been completed.
“Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people living at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw good relationships between people and staff and found that people were treated with dignity.
“There was a positive, caring culture within the service and people were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Safeguarding and choice
Staff understood how to report abuse. The home was working within the Mental Capacity Act, with best-interest decisions and legal authorisations where needed.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals, including GPs and therapists, to support people's health and wellbeing.
“The provider worked closely with several community health and social care professionals to ensure people maintained their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Medicine storage and records
seriousMedicine storage was limited and could have led to medicines being given to the wrong person. Instructions and records for some medicines, creams, patches and refrigerated medicines were incomplete.
“storage of medicines was limited which posed a risk of medicines being administered to the wrong person.” from the report
Accident monitoring
needs fixingThe home recorded accidents and incidents, but there was little evidence that it analysed them for patterns or lessons. Improvements had started during the inspection.
“There was minimal evidence to support the monitoring and analysing of accidents, incidents or falls.” from the report
Quality actions not always followed up
needs fixingActions identified through quality audits were not always revisited and signed off. Inspectors recommended that the provider improve this process.
“Where improvements to the service had been identified through quality auditing, action was not always revisited and signed off.” from the report
Some areas need refurbishment
minorSome parts of the home needed refurbishment to allow more effective cleaning. The inspectors were otherwise assured about infection prevention and control arrangements.
“Some areas of the care home required refurbishment to enable more effective cleaning.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicine storage so medicines cannot be given to the wrong person?
- 02How do you now check that medicine instructions, cream and patch records, and refrigerated medicine records are complete?
- 03How do you analyse accidents, incidents and falls, and how do you act on any patterns?
- 04How do you make sure actions found through quality audits are revisited and signed off?
- 05Which areas need refurbishment to support effective cleaning, and when will this be completed?
This inspection reported current ratings for Safe and Well-led only; it does not give current ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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, April 2021
Bradley House Care Home: inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, with minor refurbishment still needed.
Inspectors visited on 26 February 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control, rather than the home's full range of care.
They found the home clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules included deep cleaning and more frequent cleaning of surfaces that people often touch. The layout allowed an isolation area to be used if there was an outbreak.
Staff had good supplies of protective equipment and had been trained to use it safely. People and staff took part in regular testing and vaccinations. Staff also supported people's contact with family and friends during lockdown.
The overall service and Safe rating were both recorded as "Inspected but not rated". This means the inspection did not give a quality rating. Inspectors noted some minor redecoration and refurbishment was still in progress.
Clean environment
The home had updated cleaning schedules, including deep cleaning and more cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The service was clean and hygienic; cleaning schedules had been updated to include deep cleans and increased cleaning of high touch surface areas.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The layout allowed an isolation ward to be kept separate from other areas if an outbreak occurred.
“The layout of the service supported the provider to implement an isolation ward separate from other areas of the service to reduce the risk of transmission in the event of an outbreak.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had supplies of protective equipment, training in how to put it on and take it off, and checks were carried out by senior staff.
“All staff had completed training on the donning and doffing (putting in and taking off) of PPE, and spot checks were completed by senior staff to ensure staff complied with the guidance.” from the report
Family contact
Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing and helped them stay in contact with family and friends during lockdown.
“The provider frequently engaged with people's friends and families and supported people to maintain contact with friends and families.” from the report
Refurbishment still in progress
minorInspectors saw some minor areas needing redecoration and refurbishment. Work was ongoing under the provider's refurbishment plan.
“There were some minor areas that needed redecoration and refurbishment across the service.” from the report
- 01Which of the minor redecoration and refurbishment works identified at the inspection have now been completed?
- 02How would the home use its separate isolation ward if someone developed symptoms or tested positive?
- 03How are staff currently trained and checked on putting on and taking off protective equipment?
- 04What testing arrangements are currently in place for residents and staff?
- 05How can residents keep in contact with family and friends under the home's current visiting arrangements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a full rating of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 2021 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 House Care Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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
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.