CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Branksome Park Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with enough staff, safeguarding training and infection control measures. Inspectors found some medicine guidance and storage issues, but the home addressed these immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable care, food, drink and healthcare support. Staff were trained and worked with health and social care professionals, and the home followed the legal process for consent and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and involved them in decisions. Staff supported people's privacy, dignity, independence, relationships and personal choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home offered personalised care, activities and different ways to communicate. Some care records were conflicting or not written in a person-centred way while information was being moved to a new electronic system.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective audits, action plans and an open approach to learning and improvement. Managers recognised that more work was needed on care planning and communication.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but care records were not always consistent during an electronic system change.
Inspectors visited without notice on 22, 25 and 26 July 2022. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, good infection control, suitable training, respectful care and effective work with health professionals.
There were some shortfalls. Guidance for some occasional medicines was missing, some care plans had conflicting or non-person-centred information, and a few safety records or storage arrangements needed correction. The home acted immediately on these issues and inspectors found no impact on people.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs. The home had also reduced its use of agency staff and tried to use the same agency workers for consistency.
“There were enough staff on duty. People and their relatives told us staff were there when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw people being offered choices and supported with dignity, privacy and independence.
“People and their relatives told us staff treated them with dignity and ensured their privacy was respected.” from the report
Good healthcare support
The home sought help from doctors, specialists and nurses when needed. Health professionals said care was sought promptly and communication was good.
“Health and social care professionals were positive about how care was sought for people in a timely manner and without delay.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in group and one-to-one activities, continue hobbies and keep in touch with relatives and friends.
“People had access to a wide range of activities which included group activities both inside and outside the home and one to one time.” from the report
Active improvement
Managers used audits and an improvement plan to identify and address problems. Inspectors found an open culture of learning from incidents and feedback.
“Quality assurance systems in place were robust and effective in managing the risks to the quality of the service.” from the report
Medicine guidance
needs fixingGuidance for staff was missing for some medicines taken occasionally. The home created the guidance immediately, and inspectors found no impact on people.
“However, where some medicines were taken occasionally guidance for staff was not always in place to ensure they were given consistently.” from the report
Care record transfer
needs fixingSome care plans had conflicting information and were not written in a person-centred way. The home used extra checks, allocated staff and a daily planner while the transfer was completed.
“Some care plan records contained conflicting information and written in language which was not person centred.” from the report
Safety arrangements
needs fixingInspectors found several technical safety issues, including oxygen cylinders that did not fit securely, a controlled-medicine cabinet that was not secured as required, and evacuation plans missing some equipment instructions. These were acted on immediately.
“However, the home had recently had a change to their oxygen cylinder supply, and these did not fit securely within the storage cage.” from the report
- 01Has the move to the new electronic care planning system been completed, and how do you check that each care plan is accurate and person-centred?
- 02How is guidance for occasional medicines now kept up to date and checked by staff?
- 03Have the oxygen cylinders, controlled-medicine cabinet and emergency evacuation plans all been corrected and reviewed since the inspection?
- 04How do you make sure staff have the latest information about changes in a person's needs?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care, activities and end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 August 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, December 2018
Branksome Park Care Centre was rated Outstanding; inspectors found highly personalised care and strong leadership, with some records and mealtime issues to monitor.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 16 and 17 August 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, premises and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, good health support, kind staff and respect for people's choices and dignity.
Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding. Inspectors found care was exceptionally personalised, with activities and support built around people's lives, interests and wishes. People, relatives and staff were involved in improving the home.
The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection to Outstanding. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns, but some monitoring records were incomplete on the first day and some people experienced delays at a mealtime.
Personalised support
Staff took time to understand people's histories, preferences and communication needs. They adapted care and equipment so people could make choices and take part in important activities.
“The service was truly responsive and people's preferences were paramount when delivering their care, treatment and support.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring and attentive. Inspectors saw warm relationships and found that privacy, dignity and choice were respected.
“Staff were very caring, compassionate and positive about people and their families and visitors.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team was approachable and encouraged people, relatives, staff and professionals to suggest improvements. Quality checks were regular and action was taken when shortfalls were found.
“There were robust quality assurance and audit systems in place that identified any shortfalls and drove improvements.” from the report
Incomplete monitoring records
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, some records had not been completed when care and support took place. The manager introduced twice-daily checks by the second day and planned an electronic recording system.
“On the first day of the inspection some people's records had not been completed as care, treatment and support happened.” from the report
Mealtime delays
needs fixingSome people had a mixed experience at one mealtime, including delays in receiving help to eat. The experience improved on the second day after inspectors raised it.
“On the first day of the inspection some people had mixed experiences during the mealtime, including some delays in being supported to eat their meal.” from the report
Recruitment follow-up
minorOne staff member's declared information had not initially been checked with a previous employer. The provider followed this up immediately.
“However, information declared by one staff member had not been followed up with a previous employer.” from the report
Care plan wording
minorThe manager recognised that the paper care planning system had limitations and that some language was not person centred. An electronic system was planned within the next year.
“The registered manager acknowledged there were some limitations with their current paper written records and that the language used in the current care planning format was not always person centred.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure monitoring records are completed when care, treatment and support happen?
- 02What changes were made to mealtime support after the delays found during the inspection?
- 03Has the planned electronic care planning and recording system been introduced, and how has it improved person-centred records?
- 04How are agency staff selected and checked before they work unsupervised?
- 05How will my relative's personal history, communication needs, interests and family relationships be reflected in their care plan?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says Safe, Effective and Caring remained Good while Responsive and Well-led improved to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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 Branksome Park Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 May 2015.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.