CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brindley Manor Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and inspectors found enough staff and safe medicines arrangements. They noted that repositioning records could be more accurate and that some infection control practices needed strengthening.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was supported by training, food and healthcare arrangements. The home was also refurbishing parts of the building, although equipment was being stored in one lounge area.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff involved people in everyday choices and understood their individual preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and relatives were kept informed. People had access to activities, visits, complaint arrangements and end-of-life support.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, approachable management, teamwork and effective checks on care quality. Management responded to feedback during the inspection and took action on identified issues.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and infection control practices needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 July 2023. Inspectors spoke with 5 people, 5 relatives and 9 staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staffing checks, complaints and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable care planning, good food and healthcare support, kind staff, activities, and open management.
There were some improvements still needed. Records of repositioning were not always accurate. Items had been left in some communal bathrooms, and equipment was stored in a lounge area. The home said it had acted on these points.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs safely, and call bells were generally answered promptly. Recruitment checks were also completed safely.
“We saw there were sufficient staff to respond to people's needs without unnecessary delay, and call bells were generally answered promptly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and compassionate. Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity and choices.
“People and their relatives described how staff provided people's care and support in a kind and compassionate manner.” from the report
Food and health support
People were offered food choices and received support with eating, drinking and weight management. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to respond to health needs.
“People were offered a choice of food and were able to request anything they liked from the kitchen.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in varied activities and to maintain contact with relatives and friends.
“There have been ukulele and guitar players, youngsters from a local school, a woman who brought her child and dog in and we have had parties.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found positive teamwork and management that listened to feedback. Quality checks were used to monitor care and make improvements.
“The registered manager was receptive to all feedback during the inspection and open and transparent during the process.” from the report
Repositioning records
needs fixingThe accuracy of records showing when staff repositioned people could be improved. This matters because repositioning helps reduce the risk of sore skin.
“We found no evidence of harm to people, however, the accuracy of recording when staff had assisted people to reposition could be further improved.” from the report
Infection control details
needs fixingItems including a towel and bar of soap had been left in some communal bathrooms and toilets. They were removed immediately, but the home recognised that infection prevention practices needed strengthening.
“The registered manager was aware staff's infection prevention and control practices required strengthening to further reduce the risk of infections.” from the report
Equipment storage
minorSome equipment was stored in a lounge area. Management was aware of this and had plans to address it.
“There were some areas of the home environment where equipment was being stored such as a lounge area.” from the report
Different experiences of call bell response
minorAlthough inspectors generally saw prompt responses, one person reported long waits when staff were serving lunch. Ask how response times are checked during busy periods.
“Another person said, "The staff are not very quick answering the buzzer, if they are doing lunches then there is a long wait.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that repositioning records are now accurate and consistently completed?
- 02What checks now make sure towels, soap and other items are not left in communal bathrooms and toilets?
- 03Where is equipment currently stored, and how do you prevent it from obstructing lounge or communal areas?
- 04How do you monitor call bell response times during meals and other busy periods?
- 05What activities are currently available, and how do you match them to each person's interests and preferences?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of this registered service, while the previous provider was rated Good in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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.
Every inspection of Brindley Manor Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2021.
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 Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.