CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brantley Manor Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some medicines were missed or recorded incorrectly, medicines-room temperature checks were not reliably recorded, night staffing was sometimes too low and parts of the environment were damaged. Recruitment, staff training and infection-control arrangements were otherwise found to be in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in the report text.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in the report text.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in the report text.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Staff and relatives gave mixed feedback about leadership and raising concerns. Quality audits and maintenance oversight did not always identify or resolve problems promptly.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found missed medicines, environmental risks, night staffing gaps and weaknesses in leadership oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 April 2023. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because they had received concerns about leadership, management and staffing. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training and management records.
The home was not always safe. Some prescribed medicines had not been given or were not recorded properly. Night staffing was below the assessed level on 11 occasions in March 2023. Damaged floors, walls and wooden areas in an upstairs bathroom and toilet created safety and infection-control risks.
Leadership was also rated Requires Improvement. Staff gave mixed views about whether they could raise concerns and whether action followed. Quality checks were in place but had not found all the problems. After the inspection, the provider carried out repairs, employed more staff and introduced further ways to raise concerns.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The other three key-question ratings were not inspected during this visit and were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Staff recruitment
Recruitment checks were in place to help ensure suitable staff were employed.
“Records showed there were safe recruitment processes in place that ensured people were supported by suitable staff.” from the report
Training
Staff had training and medicine-administration competency checks. The home also had guidance for giving medicines when needed.
“Staff had received training, and competency checks to administer medicines.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had appropriate arrangements for infection prevention, protective equipment and responding to infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home analysed incidents such as falls and used the findings to reduce the risk of them happening again.
“Effective analysis of incidents was in place.” from the report
Health partnerships
A visiting health professional reported that the home sought advice promptly and dealt with issues.
“We have a good relationship with the home, issues get dealt with and they [staff] seek advice in a timely way.” from the report
Medicines were not always given safely
seriousRecords showed gaps in medicine administration, including prescribed medicines that had not been given and medicines signed for but not administered. This created a risk to people's health and wellbeing.
“We found instances where people had not received their prescribed medicines, on 3 occasions in April 2023” from the report
Night staffing
seriousStaffing was below the home's assessed safe level on 11 occasions in March 2023. The emergency guidance did not include enough contact information and named someone who no longer worked for the provider.
“We identified staffing levels at night were not always adequate.” from the report
Damaged bathroom and toilet areas
seriousDamaged floors, walls and wooden areas in an upstairs bathroom and toilet created safety and infection-control risks and made effective cleaning harder.
“Several areas of the environment were damaged which posed a risk of infection and compromised the effectiveness of cleaning.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits were in place but did not identify all the problems found during the inspection. Maintenance plans also lacked completion dates for all the required work.
“Whilst we saw actions had been completed to address any outstanding issues, they had not always identified all issues as detailed in safe.” from the report
Staff confidence in raising concerns
needs fixingSome staff said they did not feel comfortable raising concerns and felt issues were not always acknowledged or treated seriously. The provider introduced additional ways to raise concerns after the inspection.
“Staff told us they felt they could not raise concerns due to issues with the registered manager not maintaining confidentiality” from the report
- 01What checks now confirm that every prescribed medicine is given and recorded correctly?
- 02How do you monitor medicines-room temperatures every day, and how do you deal with any missed records?
- 03What night staffing level is now in place, and what happens if staffing falls below the assessed safe level?
- 04Have all the bathroom and toilet repairs been completed, and how is ongoing maintenance now monitored?
- 05How can staff and relatives raise concerns confidentially, and how will you show that concerns lead to action?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key-question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 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, May 2022
Brantley Manor Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak, but some areas needed maintenance.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, and at whether staff shortages were affecting care.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing the outbreak and admitting people safely. Staff had infection control training and the home had enough staff despite some workers isolating.
The home checked vaccination evidence for visiting professionals and supported visits in line with government guidance. However, some areas needed maintenance so they could be cleaned effectively. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control training
All staff had completed infection prevention and control training, including training on PPE and hand washing. Refresher training and competency checks were also carried out.
“All staff had completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training including use of personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing and hand washing.” from the report
COVID-19 arrangements
The home had up-to-date COVID-19 policies and inspectors were assured that it could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
“The service had up to date policies and procedures in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
Staffing cover
The home maintained safe staffing levels while some staff were isolating because other staff covered the shifts.
“The service had managed to ensure safe staffing levels despite staff isolating, as other staff had been able to cover shifts.” from the report
Checks on visiting professionals
The home checked vaccination evidence for visiting professionals and turned away professionals who could not provide the required evidence.
“The service had a system and process in place for checking the vaccination status of visiting professionals.” from the report
Maintenance affecting cleaning
needs fixingSome parts of the home needed maintenance so that they could be cleaned effectively. The manager had an action plan, but the work still needed to be completed.
“There were areas of the home that needed maintenance in order for effective cleaning to take place.” from the report
- 01Which areas needed maintenance to allow effective cleaning, and has the work now been completed?
- 02How do you check that cleaning remains effective in all areas of the home?
- 03How would visits be arranged if there were another COVID-19 outbreak?
- 04How do you maintain staffing levels when staff are absent or isolating?
- 05How often are infection control training and competency checks repeated?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures during a COVID-19 outbreak; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 May 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.
Every inspection of Brantley Manor Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.