CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bramble Cottage Retirement Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk management and medicines given as prescribed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and described as competent and knowledgeable. People's nutritional, healthcare and consent needs were supported, with care based on recognised guidance.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and respectful. Staff supported people's independence, privacy, dignity and involvement in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences and were regularly updated. People had a range of activities and knew how to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, clear management responsibilities and quality checks covering areas such as care plans, medicines and infection control.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Bramble Cottage Retirement Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 8 January 2020. Inspectors observed care, spoke with eight people and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was providing personal care for 19 older people, with places for up to 28. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and clean premises. People said staff were kind, respectful and knew them well.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous overall rating was also Good. Safe had improved from Requires Improvement to Good, while the other four areas remained Good.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and administered safely. Records of administration were accurate and staff had their competence checked.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and the service had safe medicine storage systems in place.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences and support needs. Staff knew how to follow this guidance and update it when needs changed.
“People's care plans reflected individual needs with clear guidance for staff to follow to ensure person centred care was delivered.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring. Inspectors saw staff offer warm, respectful support while promoting privacy and independence.
“We observed staff talking with them in a respectful way and showing genuine warmth toward people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in flexible activities that matched their interests. Staff also supported them to maintain important relationships.
“People were supported to live as full a life as possible and were enabled to participate in activities which interested them.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's particular risks, such as mobility, falls or malnutrition?
- 02How would you support my relative's dietary preferences and make sure they have enough to eat and drink?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you support them to maintain relationships?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan if their needs changed?
- 05How can we raise a concern or complaint, and how would it be investigated?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 2020 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 2017
Rated Good overall; safe care required improvement because medicine administration procedures were not always followed.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 8 March 2017. They spoke with people, staff and managers, observed care and mealtimes, and checked care plans, staff records, medicines and quality checks.
People generally felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found kind staff, enough staff, suitable training, good food and support with health needs. Care plans reflected people's choices, and activities and visits were encouraged.
The main weakness was medicines. They were stored safely, but staff did not always stay with people until medicines were taken. Records were also completed at the end of a medicine round rather than after each person. This created a potential risk of medicines being given or recorded incorrectly.
Kind and respectful care
People described caring relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and patience.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Good choice and independence
People could choose their routines, meals, activities and where to spend their time. Staff encouraged people to do as much as they could for themselves.
“People were empowered to make their own decisions.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, routines and support needs. Staff showed they knew people as individuals.
“Care plans accurately recorded people's likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient. Staff received essential training, extra training linked to people's needs and regular supervision.
“Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service” from the report
Open management
People and staff said managers were approachable and listened to concerns. Audits, feedback and incident reviews were used to identify improvements.
“There were effective systems in place to assure quality and identify any potential improvements to the service being provided.” from the report
Medicine administration
seriousStaff did not always stay with people until medicines had been taken. Some medicines were left where other people could reach them, and records were completed after the round rather than after each person.
“However, safe procedures for the administration of the medication were not routinely being followed, which placed people at potential risk of receiving their medicines incorrectly.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way medicines are given since this inspection?
- 02How do you make sure staff stay with each person until their medicine has been taken or refused?
- 03How is each medicine administration recorded, and who checks the records for mistakes?
- 04How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change, including during palliative care?
- 05How are residents' views used to change activities, meals and care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 2017 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 Bramble Cottage Retirement Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bramble Cottage Retirement Home →
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bramble Cottage Retirement Home →
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.