Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Bramwell

Goodpublished 9 April 2026, 5 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • More activities wanted

    minor

    People 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 fixing

    Inspectors 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How many staff are planned for each unit at busy times, including mealtimes?
  2. 02What happens when there is short-notice sickness or a staff vacancy?
  3. 03What activities are available on each unit for people who do not want to move to another floor?
  4. 04How are activities adapted for someone who prefers to stay in their room or is at risk of social isolation?
  5. 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.

An earlier report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Falls and skin risks

    serious

    Some 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

    serious

    Inspectors 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

    serious

    There 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 fixing

    Care 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 fixing

    Audits 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has changed to make sure falls risks, repositioning needs and pressure damage risks are assessed and followed every day?
  2. 02How many staff are working during busy periods, especially mealtimes, and how do you make sure people receive help promptly?
  3. 03What action has been taken to improve cleaning in the kitchenettes, dining areas and laundry?
  4. 04How do you keep care plans up to date when a person's needs change?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Bramwell

3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. February 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Bramwell →

  2. December 2016Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Bramwell →

  3. April 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. October 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. June 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
Melanie B., about Ernest C.
See live-in carers near NottinghamshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.