CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Britten Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments, prompt responses to call bells and effective infection control measures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had a good oversight of the service, staff felt supported and people and relatives said the home was well-led. Audits, feedback and meetings were used to identify and address improvements.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well-led, with some records needing prompt improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 July 2023. Inspectors looked at concerns about care and moving and handling, and checked the Safe and Well-led areas. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed records and observed care.
Inspectors found systems to reduce abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were available, medicines were given safely, recruitment checks were completed for staff already working, and the home was clean. People said they felt safe and call bells were answered quickly.
The home was judged well-led. Managers knew people’s needs, responded to problems and used audits and meetings to improve care. Some care records did not contain all the information needed, but managers acted immediately to correct the issues.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Good. Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and the home acted on safeguarding concerns.
“People told us they felt safe in the service, which was confirmed by relatives.” from the report
Safe medicines support
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and their competence was checked, with audits used to identify errors.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, which was confirmed in records.” from the report
Prompt staff response
Inspectors saw staff available when people needed help. People said call bells were answered quickly and were within reach.
“We observed staff were available when people needed them and requests for assistance were responded to promptly.” from the report
Clean and hygienic home
The home was clean, and inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
Responsive management
Managers knew people’s needs and acted quickly when records needed correcting. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management.
“The registered manager had a good oversight of the service and the people who used it.” from the report
Some care records were incomplete
needs fixingInspectors found discrepancies in care records. Managers acted immediately, including updating information about a person’s mental health needs.
“Where we had identified improvements needed in the records, this was immediately addressed by the registered manager and their team.” from the report
Medicine patch records
needs fixingRecords did not always show where medicine patches had been placed on the body. The manager took immediate action to address this.
“Immediate action was taken by the registered manager when a person's records did not always identify where on the body medicines, in the form of patches, were placed to ensure they were effective.” from the report
Flammable cream risk assessments
needs fixingThere were initially no risk assessments for flammable creams. The manager put these in place during the inspection, and inspectors were assured that other guidance reduced the risk.
“There were no risk assessments in place relating to the use of creams which were flammable.” from the report
Some recruitment checks pending
minorNew staff had been employed and the home was waiting for satisfactory recruitment checks. The report says existing staff recruitment records showed the appropriate checks had been completed.
“The registered manager told us staff recruitment was ongoing and new staff had recently been employed, for which they were awaiting satisfactory recruitment checks.” from the report
- 01How do you check that care records are updated promptly when a person’s needs or health change?
- 02How do you record the placement of medicine patches and check that these records remain complete?
- 03What risk assessments are now in place for flammable creams, and how are staff checked on the safe process?
- 04Have all recruitment checks for recently employed staff now been completed?
- 05How do you make sure staffing levels remain safe when there is sickness or other last-minute change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 3 and 4 October 2017. Two inspectors and two experts by experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, kind care, personalised support and a strong system for checking and improving quality.
The home had improved significantly since the previous inspection in May 2016. Earlier problems with staffing, care records, activities and quality monitoring had been addressed, and the home was no longer in breach of any regulations. Some paperwork still needed to be more consistent, especially records about mental capacity, best-interest decisions and people's involvement in care reviews.
Improved overall service
The home had addressed the problems identified at the previous inspection and was no longer breaching regulations.
“At this inspection the service had made significant improvements and was no longer in breach of any Regulations.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were stored, managed and given safely. Checks did not identify discrepancies in the medicine records they examined.
“Medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring, and inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and responding to distress.
“We observed that staff interacted with people in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences and life histories. Staff knew people as individuals and supported their interests.
“People's care plans were personalised and included detailed information about people's daily routines and how they wanted their care delivered.” from the report
Strong improvement checks
The management team used regular audits and action plans to find shortfalls and check that improvements had worked.
“There was a robust quality assurance system in place at the service which records demonstrated was capable of identifying shortfalls.” from the report
Mental capacity paperwork
needs fixingInspectors could not find capacity assessments for two people. Records of best-interest decisions were not always complete or clear.
“However, some improvements were required to ensure that records for other people clearly reflected the process of making a decision in their best interest.” from the report
Care review records
needs fixingSome records did not show whether people or their relatives had been involved in reviewing care. The report says six records had this section left blank.
“In six of these documents we reviewed this section was blank and did not evidence whether the person or their relative had been asked for their views.” from the report
Use of agency staff
needs fixingPeople and relatives were unhappy about seeing many agency staff, who they felt did not know them as well as permanent staff. The home said agency use had reduced and it was working towards a more permanent staff group.
“People and their relatives made negative comments about the use of agency care staff in the service.” from the report
- 01How many agency staff are currently used, and what has been done to increase the number of permanent care staff?
- 02How do you now make sure capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are completed and easy to find?
- 03How do you record a person's or relative's involvement in care planning and care reviews?
- 04How do you check that staffing levels continue to match people's needs?
- 05What activities and trips are currently available across all four units?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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 Britten Court
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.