CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Britannia Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. They found arrangements covering visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- 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
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were keeping people safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 November 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 response, rather than the full quality of care.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well ventilated. They were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment and outbreaks safely.
Staff used protective equipment appropriately and handovers included updated COVID-19 guidance. People isolating in their bedrooms were given bags containing treats and items to help pass the time.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five key questions.
Clean environment
The home was clean and well ventilated, with regular infection control routines in place.
“The home was clean and well ventilated, with regular regimes in place to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Use of PPE
Staff were observed using personal protective equipment appropriately.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately.” from the report
Support during isolation
People who had to stay in their bedrooms were given treats and items to help occupy them.
“People who needed to isolate in their bedrooms were provided with 'Goody bags' which included treats to eat and items to help them pass the time” from the report
Clear infection guidance
Signs around the home reinforced infection control procedures, and staff handovers included the latest COVID-19 guidance.
“Staff handovers included updates on the latest guidance for managing COVID 19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently checking that visitors cannot bring infections into the home?
- 02How often is the infection prevention and control policy reviewed and updated?
- 03How do you arrange testing for residents and staff now?
- 04What support is offered to people who need to isolate in their bedrooms?
- 05How are staff kept up to date with current infection control guidance?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the COVID-19 response; the service was inspected but not rated and the wider quality of care was not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some care planning and activities improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 September 2017. Inspectors spoke with nine people living at the home, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and other management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People said they felt safe, were treated with kindness and liked the food. Inspectors also found enough staff, safe medicines management and good access to health professionals.
There were some areas to improve. Some care records repeated information or did not contain enough personalised detail. Some instructions for medicines given when needed lacked detail. The home did not yet have an activities coordinator, although activities were being provided.
The home had improved since the previous comprehensive inspection in August 2016. The earlier breach about medicines had been corrected. The Good rating means inspectors found the service met the expected standard overall at this inspection.
Medicines improved
The home had corrected the medicines problems found at the previous inspection. Staff had training and competency checks, and people said they received medicines at the right times.
“During this inspection we found the required improvements had been made.” from the report
Good food choices
People had fresh food with a wide choice, including western, South Asian, vegetarian and halal options. Staff also supported people who were at risk of poor nutrition.
“People were provided with an excellent choice of food which was prepared fresh daily.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed warm and respectful interactions. People were supported to make choices, use community facilities and develop independence.
“We saw staff treated people in a kind and respectful manner.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used regular audits, meetings and feedback to identify issues and make changes. Inspectors found the service had continued to improve.
“Systems were operated effectively to assess and monitor the safety and quality of the services provided.” from the report
Repeated risk information
minorSome information was duplicated between risk assessments and care plans. The manager had identified this and was supporting staff to improve the records.
“We found there was some duplication of information recorded in the risk assessments and care plans.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans were not sufficiently personalised or well evaluated. Advice from health professionals was not always added to the relevant care plan.
“We found some of these care plans would benefit from more person centred detail and better quality evaluation.” from the report
Activities coordinator not appointed
minorActivities were available, including games, outings and entertainment, but there was no activities coordinator in post. The manager planned to recruit one to provide activities more consistently.
“At the time of the inspection there was no activities co-ordinator employed.” from the report
Stand-aid service check
needs fixingA stand-aid was being used without evidence that it had been serviced. The manager took immediate action during the inspection.
“The passenger lift was maintained, however, we saw a stand-aid was in use with no evidence of it having been serviced.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to make care plans more personalised and to record health professionals' advice?
- 02How do you make sure instructions for medicines given when needed include the steps staff should try first?
- 03Has an activities coordinator now been appointed, and what regular activities and outings are currently available?
- 04How do you check that equipment such as stand-aids has been serviced before it is used?
- 05How do you involve relatives in meetings and in decisions about improvements to the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous comprehensive inspection was in August 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 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 Britannia Care
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.