CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brambles
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, completed risk assessments, safe medicine storage and staff who knew how to recognise and report abuse. However, medicine administration records were not always completed in line with the provider's policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received relevant training, supervision and support. People were supported with food, drink, health conditions and healthcare appointments. Some best-interests decisions did not clearly identify the issue being decided.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff asked permission before providing support, protected privacy and helped people maintain independence and personal relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People were supported with activities, relationships and complaints, but care records were not always accessible because they were only available in words.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found strong teamwork, detailed monitoring and clear action plans. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to influence how the home was run, including through meetings, surveys and involvement in staff recruitment.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Brambles: Rated Good overall, with Outstanding leadership; inspectors found kind, personalised care but some medicines records were incomplete.
Inspectors visited on 20 and 21 September 2017. The report describes the inspection as unannounced in its summary, but as announced in the background section. They spoke with staff and managers, observed care in shared areas, and checked care records for three people, as well as staffing, training and management records. An expert by experience could not speak with relatives within the inspection timescale.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and/or sensory disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff had the training and skills needed, and people had access to suitable food, drinks and healthcare.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. It was rated Outstanding for Well-led. Inspectors found some medicines records were not always completed as the provider's policy required. They also found that some best-interests records did not clearly say what decision was being made, and care records were not always accessible because they were only written in words.
Kind and respectful care
Staff took time to engage with people, asked permission before helping them and respected their privacy and dignity.
“We saw that people were treated in a kind and respectful way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and communication methods. Staff supported independence, including for people with visual or communication difficulties.
“We saw care records included information about people's choices and how they liked to be supported.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered individual and group activities, holidays and community visits. Staff also helped people keep in touch with relatives and friends.
“The arrangements for activities meant people had access to group, individual and relaxation sessions according to their needs.” from the report
Strong leadership
The home used regular audits, staff meetings, surveys and action plans to monitor care and make improvements. People were supported to have a voice in the service.
“People, relatives and staff were encouraged to influence the running of the home.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingMedicine administration records were not always completed as required by the provider's own policy. This could make it harder to confirm that every dose was recorded correctly.
“medicine administration records were not always completed according to the provider's medicine policy.” from the report
Medicine policy
minorThe medicine policy did not include guidance on contacting a pharmacist, as recommended in national guidance. The manager agreed to discuss and amend the policy.
“the medicine policy did not include guidance about contacting a pharmacist which is recommended in national guidance about managing medicines (NICE).” from the report
Best-interests records
needs fixingSome records did not clearly state what decision was being made for a person who could not consent. This included decisions about specialist safety equipment.
“best interests decisions had been completed they did not always specify the issues a decision was required for.” from the report
Accessible information
minorCare records were personalised, but they were only available in written words. This meant they were not always accessible to the people living in the home.
“care records were only available in words which meant they were not always accessible to people.” from the report
- 01How do you check that every medicine administration record is completed correctly and promptly?
- 02What changes have you made to the medicines policy about when staff should contact a pharmacist?
- 03How do you make sure best-interests records clearly identify the decision being made, including decisions about specialist equipment?
- 04How will you make care plans and other important information accessible to people who cannot use written words?
- 05How can residents and relatives take part in meetings, surveys or decisions about the home?
This was an inspection of all five key questions, including observations of care and checks of records for three of the six people living at the home; the report gives conflicting descriptions of the visit as unannounced and announced. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 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 Brambles
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 January 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of 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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.