CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brancepeth Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable safeguarding systems, safe medicines management and effective infection prevention measures. Risk assessments were in place, although staff were still working to ensure all potential risks were fully planned for.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The report says previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The report says previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The report says previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture, regular reviews of the service and action plans for improvements. People and families were involved in discussions about care.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found people safe and well-led, but this visit only assessed those two areas and no registered manager was in post.
An unannounced inspection took place on 24 November 2022. One inspector spoke with seven people, contacted eight relatives, spoke with staff and managers, and reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, safeguarding procedures and suitable infection control. People said they felt safe and that staff were available to help.
The manager promoted a person-centred culture and involved people and families in care discussions. The home had remained Good since the previous inspection, published in February 2018.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, and their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were available to help them.
“The staff are great, and there are always staff around to help me.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent. Medicines records were checked regularly for accuracy.
“People's medicines were managed in a safe manner.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs during the day and night, including time for conversation and activities.
“There were enough staff to safely care for people.” from the report
Positive culture
The manager and staff put people's needs and wishes at the centre of their work. People said staff listened to them.
“The manager promoted a positive, person-centred culture.” from the report
Family involvement
People and their families were involved in discussions about care and support needs. The manager was described as approachable.
“People told us the manager was approachable and acted swiftly to address any issues.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. A recently appointed manager had submitted an application.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Assessment tool still needed improvement
needs fixingThe provider recognised that its new electronic assessment tool did not yet fully cover people's needs.
“The provider understood the new electronic assessment tool required further enhancement to ensure it fully covered people's needs.” from the report
Capacity records under review
minorThe manager was reviewing records to make sure capacity assessments and best-interests decisions were specific to each decision.
“The manager was in the process of reviewing people's care records to ensure all capacity assessments and 'best interests' documents were decision specific.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed and approved?
- 02What changes have been made to the electronic assessment tool so it fully covers people's needs?
- 03Have all capacity assessments and best-interests documents been reviewed and made decision specific?
- 04How are risk assessments checked to make sure all potential risks are covered?
- 05How often are medicines records checked, and what happens if an error is found?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2022 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the Covid-19 focused visit.
Inspectors visited the home on 17 November 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection looking only at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
They found safe visiting arrangements, screening for visitors, social distancing measures and suitable use of personal protective equipment. The home also had arrangements for safe admissions and regular Covid-19 testing for residents and staff.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. Safe was also marked inspected but not rated. The report does not give ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led.
Safe visiting
The home had arrangements to screen visitors and reduce the risk of infection entering or spreading.
“Systems were in place to allow safe visiting, including screening visitors to reduce any potential infection risk, before they entered the building.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used personal protective equipment, and had received infection prevention and control training.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE). Training in infection prevention and control measures and the appropriate use of PPE had taken place.” from the report
Testing and admissions
The home had processes for admitting people safely and a regular Covid-19 testing programme for residents and staff.
“A regular programme of Covid-19 testing was in place for people and the staff team.” from the report
Managing infection risks
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering social distancing, hygiene, outbreak management and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the visiting arrangements changed since the inspection?
- 02How often are residents and staff currently tested for infections?
- 03How do you manage admissions when someone may have an infection?
- 04How do you make sure staff use personal protective equipment correctly?
- 05What was the outcome of the home's most recent full inspection covering care, staffing and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the other questions were not assessed and no overall rating was given. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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.
Every inspection of Brancepeth Court
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2011.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.