CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Braemar Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Are people protected from harm? Staffing, medicines, infection control, safeguarding.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable managers, a positive person-centred culture and effective systems for checking quality and acting on concerns.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Braemar Care Home rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger management after an earlier Requires Improvement rating.
This was a planned inspection on 18 May 2021. Inspectors reviewed records and information, observed care, spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and outside professionals, and checked medicines, staffing, recruitment, risks, the environment and infection control.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments and effective infection control measures.
The inspection focused on Safe and Well-led. The other key questions were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection, published on 4 July 2019.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found safeguarding systems were in place and followed.
“People said they felt safe using the service.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough consistent staff to meet people's needs safely and without rushing. Recruitment checks helped ensure suitable staff were employed.
“Staff were seen to have the time they required to provide people with responsive and effective care in a relaxed and unhurried way.” from the report
Safe medicines arrangements
People received their medicines as prescribed. The home had systems for storing, administering, recording and disposing of medicines.
“There were safe systems in place for the management of medicines.” from the report
Strong management
The management team was described as open and approachable. Audits and other checks were used to identify concerns and improve the service.
“There were robust quality assurance procedures in place, which included audits of care plans, infection control, medicines, the environment and accidents and incidents.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found suitable arrangements for COVID-19 testing, personal protective equipment, visiting, cleaning and admissions.
“We were assured that the provider was using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicine temperature records
minorStaff were recording medicine fridge temperatures incorrectly, although the actual temperatures were safe. The issue had not been found by medicines audits, but the home took prompt action after inspectors raised it.
“We noted that although temperatures of the medicine's fridge were safe staff were incorrectly recording these temperatures” from the report
- 01How are medicine fridge temperatures recorded and checked since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure medicines audits identify recording errors as well as missing signatures?
- 03What are the current ratings or evidence for Caring, Effective and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
- 04How are staffing levels adjusted when people's care needs change or staff are absent?
- 05How are relatives kept informed about changes to a person's health or care needs?
This was a planned inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but medicines and quality checks were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 23 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, visitors, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicines, staffing, complaints, accidents, training and the building.
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found good support with food, health needs, activities, choice and personal care. The home was clean and felt homely, and people and relatives said they felt safe.
There were important weaknesses in medicines management. Records were not always accurate, medicine storage temperatures were not properly monitored, and risks linked to some creams had not been assessed. Some care records and daily notes were also not reliable enough to show that planned care had been given. The manager took immediate action during and after the inspection to address some of these issues.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home had previously been rated Good at the comprehensive inspection published on 13 December 2016. CQC said no required follow-up was needed, but it would continue to monitor the home.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and consideration. Staff understood people's preferences and supported their dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care” from the report
Good food and mealtime support
People were offered choices and alternatives, with suitable support for modified diets. Staff were patient and helped make mealtimes positive.
“Where people needed support with their meal staff were patient and engaged the person in conversation to ensure it was a positive experience.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose from activities in the home and community. Staff sought people's views, interests and ideas when planning activities.
“There was a dedicated activities staff member who regularly sought people's views, ideas and interests for activities planned in the home and the local community.” from the report
Safeguarding systems
The home had systems to protect people from abuse. Staff knew how to raise concerns, and records showed that appropriate action was taken when concerns arose.
“There were appropriate systems in place to protect people from abuse.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had access to induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Training was adapted to support staff with different learning needs.
“Staff were offered a range of ways to train, including face to face and workbooks.” from the report
Medicines records and storage
seriousMedicine administration records were not always accurate, including recording the correct administration time and allergy information. Storage temperatures were not properly monitored, and topical cream records were incomplete.
“Medicines were not always managed in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Risks from some creams
seriousRisk assessments were not in place for paraffin-based creams, including risks related to storage away from ignition sources.
“Where paraffin based creams had been prescribed to people, risk assessments were not in place in respect to their use and storage away from sources of ignition;” from the report
Care records and daily notes
needs fixingQuality checks identified missing or outdated information but did not always ensure it was corrected. Daily records did not always show that planned care had been completed.
“care records and daily recordings were not always effective to ensure people's care plans were up to date and accurate.” from the report
Infection control practice
needs fixingSome housekeeping staff did not always follow guidance when dealing with soiled laundry and using red bags. The manager acted during the inspection to address this.
“some of the housekeeping staff did not always follow Department of Health (DoH) guidance in respect of dealing with soiled laundry and the appropriate use of red bags.” from the report
Dementia-friendly signage
minorSome decoration and signage did not support people living with dementia. For example, the menu was difficult for older people and people living with dementia to read.
“The building decoration lacked dementia friendly signage to promote people's independence.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicine records, storage temperature checks and allergy information since the inspection?
- 02How do you assess and manage the fire risks linked to paraffin-based creams?
- 03How do your current audits make sure care plans are completed and updated when problems are found?
- 04How do you check that daily records show planned care, such as repositioning, has been completed?
- 05What changes have been made to signage and the environment for people living with dementia?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 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 Braemar Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 November 2010.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.