CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Branwell Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe. They found appropriate measures for visitors, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Branwell Manor was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 November 2020. It checked infection prevention and control because of the CQC response to coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well ventilated. Staff used personal protective equipment properly, hand sanitiser was available, and signs supported infection control procedures.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, admissions, testing, PPE and possible outbreaks safely. People said they felt safe and understood the arrangements linked to COVID-19.
The service was inspected but not rated. This visit looked at infection prevention and control only, rather than giving an overall quality rating.
Clean and ventilated home
The home was clean and well ventilated, with regular measures to help prevent infection spreading.
“The home was clean and well ventilated, with regular regimes in place to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Effective protective equipment
Staff wore personal protective equipment appropriately, and inspectors were assured it was being used safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Outbreak planning
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
“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 are visitors currently managed to prevent infections entering or spreading in the home?
- 02How do you make sure staff continue to use personal protective equipment correctly?
- 03How are people using the service and staff currently tested for infections?
- 04What is the current plan if there is an infection outbreak in the home?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 December 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.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 04 December 2019. The inspector spoke with three people, one relative, the manager and two senior staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities that mattered to them.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement, with two breaches of regulation. This inspection found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach. Some staff refresher training was out of date, but the provider was monitoring this.
Choice and independence
People were supported to have control over daily decisions and to develop their independence. Staff used the least restrictive approach and involved people in their care.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.” from the report
Safe support
The home had detailed risk assessments, safe medicines systems and enough staff to meet people's needs. Equipment and emergency arrangements were also checked.
“Systems and processes were in place to assess and manage risks to keep people safe. Risk assessments underpinned people's care plans to ensure risks were mitigated.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were happy, comfortable and relaxed with staff. Staff understood how to protect privacy and dignity.
“Staff clearly knew people well and people were happy, comfortable and relaxed in the presence of staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to maintain relationships, follow their interests and take part in activities in the home and wider community.
“People were supported to develop and maintain hobbies and interests that mattered to them, both within the service and the wider community.” from the report
Out-of-date refresher training
needs fixingSome staff refresher training was out of date. The provider was monitoring the training matrix and seeking opportunities to address the shortfalls.
“The provider had a programme of ongoing training which staff were expected to refresh at set intervals either face to face or online. Some refresher trainer was out of date.” from the report
Low response to feedback questionnaire
minorThe manager used questionnaires to seek views from people, relatives and professionals, but the response was low. The manager was considering other ways to gather feedback.
“The registered manager sought the views of people, their families and professionals by using a questionnaire, but said the response had been low.” from the report
- 01Which staff refresher training was out of date at the inspection, and has all of it now been completed?
- 02How will you make sure mental capacity assessments and consent records remain decision-specific and up to date?
- 03How do you support someone with my relative's particular physical, learning or communication needs?
- 04How do you gather feedback from people and relatives who do not use questionnaires?
- 05How are risk assessments, medicines records and quality checks reviewed when people's needs change?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 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 Branwell Manor
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 July 2014.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.