CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bramwell
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Bramwell was rated Good overall; inspectors found significant improvements since the previous inspection, with kind care and safer systems.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, care and other staff, the manager and health professionals. They observed care and looked at care records, medicines, recruitment, training, maintenance and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staffing and medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean. Staff understood people's needs, supported their health and nutrition, and treated people with kindness, privacy and dignity.
The inspection found significant improvement since November 2016. The home was no longer in breach of regulations about safety risks, staffing and quality monitoring. People could join activities and raise complaints, although many people said they would like more social activities and some relatives described staffing as inconsistent.
Improvement since the last inspection
Inspectors found that earlier concerns about risk assessments, staffing and quality monitoring had been addressed. The home was no longer in breach of any regulations.
“During this inspection we found the provider had made significant improvements to the service and were no longer in breach of any regulations” from the report
Safer care systems
Risks such as falls, choking and tissue damage were assessed, with clear measures for staff to follow. Inspectors saw staff using equipment confidently and carefully.
“The risks to people's safety had been assessed, with measures identified and in place to reduce the risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and cheerful. Inspectors observed staff reassuring people, preserving their dignity and engaging with them.
“This led to a relaxed and pleasant atmosphere at the service for the people who lived there.” from the report
Strong quality monitoring
The manager used regular audits covering areas such as care plans, medicines, falls, nutrition and the environment. Actions were taken when problems were found.
“There was a robust governance system in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
More activities wanted
minorPeople were offered activities such as bingo and crafts, but many people said they wanted more social activities. Some activities were not held on every unit, and some people did not want to move to another floor.
“most people we spoke with felt they required more social activities.” from the report
Staffing feedback was mixed
needs fixingInspectors saw enough staff during the visit, but some relatives felt staffing levels were not consistent. The report says staffing was described by some relatives as variable.
“Some relatives felt the staffing levels were "Hit and miss.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for each unit at busy times, including mealtimes?
- 02What happens when there is short-notice sickness or a staff vacancy?
- 03What activities are available on each unit for people who do not want to move to another floor?
- 04How are activities adapted for someone who prefers to stay in their room or is at risk of social isolation?
- 05How have the improvements made after the 2016 inspection been checked and maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions, observations, discussions with people and staff, care and medicines records, recruitment and training records, maintenance records and quality audits. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good support with food and healthcare, but safety, staffing, personalised care and leadership needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 15 and 16 November 2016. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, incident records, audits and maintenance records.
People generally felt safe and well cared for. Medicines were stored and given safely. Staff received relevant training, followed the Mental Capacity Act correctly, supported people to access healthcare and provided enough food and drink. Inspectors also saw kind and respectful relationships between staff and people.
However, risks such as falls and skin damage were not always properly assessed or managed. Some areas were not clean, staffing was sometimes too low, and people did not always receive the help they needed at mealtimes. Care plans were sometimes out of date, and people could spend long periods without activities or stimulation.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. The home was in breach of Regulations 12, 17 and 18.
Kind relationships
People and relatives were generally positive about staff. Inspectors saw staff respond with kindness and reassurance when people were upset.
“People felt well cared for and there were positive relationships between people and the staff who cared for them.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored securely, given as prescribed and recorded correctly.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and they were safely stored.” from the report
Training and support
Staff received training relevant to their roles and regular supervision. Inspectors saw staff use their training to support safe transfers.
“People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had enough food, drinks and snacks. The home arranged support from GPs, nurses and specialist healthcare services when needed.
“People had access to sufficient food and drink and staff ensured they had access to healthcare professionals.” from the report
Complaints
People and relatives knew how to complain. The complaints inspectors reviewed had been investigated and answered promptly.
“Each complaint had been investigated and responded to in a timely manner.” from the report
Falls and skin risks
seriousSome risks were not properly assessed or followed up. Examples included missed checks after falls, unsuitable footwear and missing pressure-relief equipment.
“Risks to people's health and safety were not always properly assessed and steps to reduce risks were not always taken.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousInspectors found cleaning problems in kitchenettes and dining areas. The same cloths were used for sinks and toilets in different bedrooms, creating a risk of cross-contamination.
“Some areas of the home were not effectively cleaned which exposed people to the risk of infection.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThere were periods when lounges were left unattended and people did not get the help they needed with meals or personal care. Staff were also taking on other duties, such as laundry and meal preparation.
“There were not always enough staff to meet people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Care information and activities
needs fixingCare plans were sometimes out of date or lacked enough detail. People could spend long periods without activities, including no planned activities at weekends.
“People did not always receive person-centred care and staff did not always have accurate, up to date information about people needs.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingAudits did not always identify problems or make sure improvements happened on time. Some care records were incomplete and confidential records were not always securely stored.
“The quality monitoring systems that were in place did not always result in improvements to the service people received.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure falls risks, repositioning needs and pressure damage risks are assessed and followed every day?
- 02How many staff are working during busy periods, especially mealtimes, and how do you make sure people receive help promptly?
- 03What action has been taken to improve cleaning in the kitchenettes, dining areas and laundry?
- 04How do you keep care plans up to date when a person's needs change?
- 05What activities are available at weekends and how are people supported with one-to-one stimulation?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating, based on visits on 15 and 16 November 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 2016 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 Bramwell
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 March 2012.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.