CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Braeside home for the Elderly Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, admissions and visiting arrangements. The deputy manager said measures were in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- 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
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 19 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
Inspectors found that the home was clean and that staff used protective equipment correctly. Staff and residents were tested regularly. The home had processes for visitors, including testing, handwashing, protective equipment and social distancing.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a new overall rating or a new rating for the Safe question.
Protective equipment
Staff used protective equipment in line with guidance. Equipment was available throughout the home and disposed of safely.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with Government guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, with enhanced daily cleaning to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“We found that the home environment was clean.” from the report
Regular testing
Staff and residents were tested regularly in line with government guidance.
“Staff and people living at the home were being tested regularly in line with Government guidance” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had clear visitor procedures, including testing, handwashing, protective equipment and social distancing. Screened or garden visits were arranged when visits inside were not possible.
“There were clear processes in place for visitors to the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
- 02What infection control training have staff completed recently?
- 03What testing and protective equipment arrangements are currently used for staff, residents and visitors?
- 04How can family visits take place if visits inside the home are not possible?
- 05What ratings apply to Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, as these were not rated in this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not give new ratings for the overall service or the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not consistently safe because infection control and emergency planning needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 8 and 9 January 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home had improved significantly since the October 2016 inspection. Medicines were stored safely, care records were more complete, staff training and supervision had improved, and the new registered manager had strengthened oversight. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because some infection control arrangements were not adequate and there was no business continuity plan for emergencies. Inspectors also saw staff did not regularly check one lounge on the first day, although this improved on the second day.
Kind and respectful care
People consistently described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed staff protecting people's privacy and dignity during care.
“During the inspection we saw that staff were kind, caring and respectful when interacting with people who lived in the home.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care records contained detailed information about people's needs, wishes, communication and preferences. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care records we reviewed were personalised and provided a good level of detail for staff to follow.” from the report
Improved management
The new registered manager and provider had introduced audits and responded to feedback. Inspectors found that oversight of the home had improved.
“Our findings showed they had made significant improvements to the way the service was run.” from the report
Complaints handled
People knew how to complain and felt confident raising concerns. The three complaints received in the previous year had been investigated and answered.
“Records showed that all complaints had been fully investigated and a response provided to the complainant.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
needs fixingThe downstairs shower room needed refurbishment. Some bathroom bins were uncovered, and aprons were stored on handrails, creating a risk of cross infection.
“We also noted that aprons provided to protect staff from the risk of infection when providing personal care were stored on handrails throughout the home prior to their use; this meant there was a risk of cross infection.” from the report
No business continuity plan
needs fixingThere was no plan explaining what staff should do if utilities failed or another emergency disrupted the service.
“However, we were told there was no business continuity plan in place to advise staff of the correct procedure to follow in the event of utility failures or other emergencies that could affect the provision of care.” from the report
Checks in one lounge
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, staff did not regularly enter one lounge. One person asked twice for a drink and staff did not respond, although interaction improved on the second day.
“During this period we heard one person request they be provided with a drink on two occasions but staff failed to respond.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to refurbish the downstairs shower room and reduce the risk of cross infection?
- 02Where are personal protective equipment items now stored, and are bathroom bins covered and foot operated?
- 03Has a business continuity plan been completed, and how are staff trained to use it during an emergency?
- 04How do you check that staff regularly visit every communal area, including the lounge mentioned in the report?
- 05How are medicines given safely when the usual early-morning staff member is not on duty?
This was a planned inspection of all five key questions, carried out to check improvements required after the October 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 2018 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 Braeside home for the Elderly Ltd
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Braeside home for the Elderly Ltd →
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Braeside home for the Elderly Ltd →
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 August 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.