CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brampton View Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective and responsive care, but safety and management systems were not yet fully reliable.
Inspectors visited unannounced over three days in October and November 2023. They spoke with 9 people, 16 relatives and 20 staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, incident records, audits and recruitment files.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. People generally received kind care, suitable food and drink, their prescribed medicines and support with health needs. Inspectors also found that people’s privacy, dignity, choices and relationships were respected.
Safety and management were still rated Requires Improvement. New checks and monitoring systems had not been fully embedded. People sometimes waited too long for help, especially around mealtimes, and more analysis was needed to prevent repeat accidents.
The home had been in Special Measures since May 2023. It is no longer in Special Measures because it was no longer rated Inadequate overall or in any key question.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind and that care had improved. Inspectors saw that people’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People told us they were looked after well by kind staff.” from the report
Personalised support
People and families were involved in care planning. Care records included personal preferences, routines and communication needs.
“These care plans provided information for staff on how to provide care that was personalised and met people's needs.” from the report
Food, drink and healthcare
People received food and drink suited to their needs and preferences. Staff recognised when people were unwell and referred them to healthcare professionals promptly.
“People received food and drink that met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Improved staff team
The provider had recruited and developed a new management and staff team. Staff said they felt supported and were working together better.
“The provider had invested time and resources into creating a management and staff team which met people's needs.” from the report
Activities and family links
People were supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and continue cultural and religious practices. Relatives were welcomed into the home.
“People were encouraged to make and maintain those relationships important to them.” from the report
Delays when people needed help
seriousPeople sometimes waited a long time for care, including around mealtimes. Inspectors identified a risk that people might try to move without help and fall.
“There was a risk that people could try and mobilise and be at risk of falls whilst waiting for care.” from the report
Safety work not complete
needs fixingSome work needed to maintain fire and water safety had not yet been completed. The provider had obtained quotes and expected the work to start after the inspection.
“However, some of the work required to maintain safety had not been carried out yet” from the report
Incident monitoring needed more analysis
needs fixingThe home recorded accidents and incidents but had not identified that most happened in people’s rooms around mealtimes. Inspectors said more action was needed to reduce the risk of repeat incidents.
“However, more analysis and action was required to help prevent future incidents” from the report
New systems not fully embedded
needs fixingSystems for checking safety, medicines and quality monitoring had recently been introduced. Inspectors found they still needed to become established in day-to-day practice.
“These systems were new and needed to be embedded into practice.” from the report
Ongoing recruitment
minorRecruitment of nursing and care staff was still under way. Inspectors also recommended reviewing staffing levels at mealtimes.
“Recruitment of nursing and care staff was on-going.” from the report
- 01How have you changed staffing and staff deployment at mealtimes so people do not wait too long for help?
- 02Have the outstanding fire and water safety works now been completed, and can you show us the latest checks?
- 03How do you monitor medicines records and prevent errors, including missed or time-critical medicines?
- 04What have you learned from accidents and incidents in people’s rooms around mealtimes?
- 05How are you checking that the new management, safety and quality systems are now fully embedded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and included infection prevention and control; the report compares the findings with the previous Inadequate inspection published on 8 September 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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, September 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks in care, medicines and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 05 April 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records. The inspection covered Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led.
The home was not consistently keeping people safe. Records did not always show that wounds were treated, people were repositioned, enough fluids were offered or medicines were given as prescribed. Inspectors also saw concerns about safe eating, equipment and support from agency staff.
The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. Safe and Well-led were rated Inadequate, while Effective and Caring were rated Requires Improvement. The home was placed in special measures because the CQC found significant concerns and will monitor progress closely.
Safe recruitment
The provider completed references and DBS checks before staff were employed.
“Staff were recruited safely. The provider completed pre-employment checks such as references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements, cleaning, protective equipment and visiting arrangements were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Mental capacity support
Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were completed appropriately, and staff understood their responsibilities.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place” from the report
Clean environment
The home appeared clean and cleaning schedules showed that regular cleaning took place.
“The home appeared clean. Cleaning schedules evidenced regular cleaning took place.” from the report
Risks were not managed
seriousRecords did not consistently show that people were repositioned, wounds were treated or known health risks were managed. Inspectors found gaps of eight hours or more in repositioning records for one person.
“People were at risk from skin pressure damage. Records did not evidence that staff had checked or changed dressings in a timely manner” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine records were incomplete, and inspectors found medicines were not always given as prescribed. Patch records were also incomplete, creating a risk of overdose.
“People were at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Food and fluids
seriousInspectors saw people were not always supported to eat safely. Fluid records did not show that people received enough to drink or that staff acted when targets were missed.
“When people needed staff to monitor their fluid intake, records did not evidence that staff had offered people regular fluids or taken action” from the report
Agency staff and training
needs fixingPeople and relatives reported delays and said agency staff did not always know people's needs. Not all staff had the training needed for conditions such as diabetes or epilepsy.
“People and relatives did not feel agency staff had the knowledge or skills to support them effectively and in a responsive way.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and other systems failed to identify important problems with care, equipment, records, staff training and medicines. These weaknesses had also been found at previous inspections.
“The provider had failed to ensure adequate systems and processes were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the care provided.” from the report
Privacy and choice
needs fixingPersonal information was left where it could be seen in a communal hallway. Care plans did not always record people's cultural, religious or staff-gender preferences.
“During the inspection we found people's personal information had been left out in a communal hallway.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to ensure wounds are checked, dressings are changed and repositioning is recorded on time?
- 02How are medicine administration records now checked, including records for patches and medicines needing checks before they are given?
- 03How do you make sure people receive enough fluids and are supported to eat safely?
- 04What training must agency staff complete before supporting people with conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy or swallowing difficulties?
- 05What independent checks now confirm that care records, equipment, staffing and medicines are safe and accurate?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; Responsive was not inspected and the report says ratings for questions not inspected were carried forward from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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.
Every inspection of Brampton View Care Home
9 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2023Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.