CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brimington Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, risk management and emergency arrangements were found to be safe, although inspectors were only somewhat assured about hygiene practices and the layout of the premises.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and care needs were supported, and staff understood their responsibilities. Some care plans were not always accurately updated, and one expired DoLS authorisation had been renewed only after a delay.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff responded promptly when people needed help. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication needs and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People, relatives and staff were positive about the management, but governance checks did not always identify and resolve problems promptly. There was no overall improvement plan showing who would make changes or when they would be completed.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good overall, with kind and safe care, but the home needs to improve its management checks and care records.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 23 March 2022. They spoke with six people, 10 relatives, eight staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staffing records, policies and management audits.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were considered sufficient, and people were supported with their health, nutrition and activities.
Inspectors found staff to be kind, respectful and responsive. People were involved in choices about their care, complaints were handled effectively, and relatives and staff were confident in the management of the home.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because management checks had not always identified or fixed problems promptly, including gaps in infection control, care records and some Mental Capacity Act records.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. People, relatives and staff felt there were enough staff to provide care.
“People received their medicines when they should.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's individual needs and responded calmly when someone became distressed. Care plans recorded people's choices and preferences.
“We saw the person subsequently became more visibly relaxed and more settled.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities, spend time with others and access the local community. Families were helped to keep in regular contact.
“People and relatives we spoke with, all felt they were kept well informed and effectively supported, to maintain regular communication with each other.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
The home had an open and welcoming atmosphere. People, relatives and staff were regularly consulted about care and service improvements.
“There was an open, welcoming and inclusive atmosphere at the service where people, relatives and staff were regularly involved and engaged” from the report
Management checks and improvement plans
needs fixingManagement checks had found repeated areas needing improvement, but there was no overall plan setting out who was responsible or when changes would be completed.
“However, there was no overall plan, to show who would be responsible for the improvements or any identified timescales for achievement.” from the report
Care records were not always complete
needs fixingCare plans were not always updated after advice from health professionals or complete enough to show best-interest decisions. End of life plans did not always record people's wishes and choices.
“Examples included, people's care plans were not always effectively maintained following external health professional instructions and to demonstrate best interest decision making in line with the MCA.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured about infection prevention linked to the premises' layout and hygiene practices. They signposted the provider to resources for improvement.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
Delayed DoLS renewal
needs fixingAction was taken to renew one person's expired authorisation, but this happened after a delay.
“Following a delay, action was recently taken by the registered manager to request the renewal of one person's expired DoLS authorisation from the relevant authority.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the management improvement plan, and who is responsible for completing each action?
- 02How do you check that care plans are updated after advice from health professionals?
- 03How do you record best-interest decisions and make sure any DoLS authorisations are renewed on time?
- 04What improvements have been made to cleanliness, hygiene and the layout of the premises?
- 05How are people's end of life wishes recorded and reviewed with them or their representative?
This was the first inspection of the service since the current provider registered it, and inspectors examined all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 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 Brimington Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.