CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Briarfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding and there were suitable risk assessments and staffing levels. Medicines, recruitment checks and infection control were also found to be suitably managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training, supervision and competence checks. People received support with nutrition, consent, mental capacity and physical and mental health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind, patient and sensitive care. Staff respected privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, current and based on people's needs, wishes and goals. People were supported to maintain relationships, take part in activities and make choices about their lives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an experienced manager, clear staff responsibilities and regular quality checks. People, families and professionals were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Briarfield was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 October 2017. One inspector visited the home, met six of the seven people living there, spoke with relatives and health professionals, and reviewed care plans, medicines, staffing and records.
The inspectors found suitable staffing, risk assessments, recruitment checks and medicine arrangements. The home was clean and comfortable. Staff were trained and supported people with their health, nutrition, communication, privacy and independence.
People received kind and individual care. Care plans were up to date, activities reflected people's interests, and families were involved. The home had a quality monitoring system, and the report says it remained Good in every area, as it had been at the September 2015 inspection.
Safeguarding and staffing
Staff knew how to protect people from harm. Inspectors judged staffing levels suitable for people's assessed needs.
“The staff team understood how to protect vulnerable adults from harm and abuse.” from the report
Medicines and health
Medicines were stored, recorded and reviewed appropriately. People were supported to see GPs and specialist health professionals when needed.
“Medicines were appropriately managed in the service with people having reviews of their medicines on a regular basis.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff responded sensitively to people's communication and needs. They respected privacy and dignity and supported independence.
“We observed kind, patient and suitable care being provided.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's health, personal care, psychological needs and goals. Families were involved in assessment and planning.
“Assessments and care plans were up to date and met the meets of people in the service.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered activities that matched their interests and abilities. Staff supported people to keep in touch with family, friends and partners.
“Everyone was given the opportunity to follow their own interests.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager and provider regularly checked areas such as medicines, care planning, health and safety and people's views.
“The service had a quality monitoring system in place which was monitored by the registered manager and by the registered provider.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular physical, learning disability or mental health needs?
- 02How do you involve families in best-interest decisions and reviews where a person cannot make a major decision independently?
- 03How are medicines reviewed, especially medicines prescribed by specialists such as psychiatrists?
- 04What activities and opportunities for independence would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you support my relative's wishes about end-of-life care and involve the family?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions; the inspector met six of seven people and reviewed care plans, medicines, staffing, records, premises and quality systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 2017 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 Briarfield
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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 Cumberland
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. 9 years' experience on average.
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.