CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Broadfield House Home for Older People
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting, social distancing, shielding and plans to prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and COVID-19 safety arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, visiting, cleaning and plans for an outbreak.
Inspectors found good practice throughout the areas they checked. The home was clean, PPE was used correctly, testing arrangements were in place, and visits followed the guidance in force at the time.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. The only question considered was Safe, and this was recorded as inspected but not rated. The report gives the visit date as 14 May 2021 on the front page, but says 14 May 2020 in the detailed section.
PPE use
Staff, management and visitors were using protective equipment correctly. The home had clear procedures for using and disposing of it.
“Staff, management and visitors were using PPE correctly and there were robust procedures in place around the use of PPE.” from the report
Infection prevention
The home had detailed processes to reduce the risk of infection. These included regular testing, hand sanitiser, signs and updated risk assessments.
“The provider and registered manager had comprehensive processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visits were taking place in line with the rules at the time. The home had created a visiting area with shielding and isolation arrangements.
“We noted the provider and manager had developed a visiting area inside the home.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with designated cleaners.
“The home was clean and hygienic. The service had designated cleaners.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since this inspection?
- 02What testing arrangements are currently used for residents and staff?
- 03How are visits managed now, including during an infection outbreak?
- 04What plans are in place to separate areas and staff if an infection spreads?
- 05What are the current ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care, which this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the other four questions and an overall rating were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 2021 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, December 2017
Broadfield House Home for Older People was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with medicines security and hospital admissions needing attention.
Inspectors visited on 30 October 2017 without notice. They spoke with people living in the home, visitors, managers and care staff. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment and training records, complaints, meetings and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe care planning, good support with health and food, kind staff and meaningful activities.
The inspection was partly prompted by an incident after which a person died. The report says inspectors did not examine the circumstances of that incident because it might be considered at a coroner's inquest. They did examine risks relating to pressure ulcers and found no concerns during the visit.
There were two recommendations. Staff who give medicines needed reminding about the medicines policy, after medicines storage was found not fully secure. The home was also asked to continue discussions with health service colleagues to reduce inappropriate admissions.
Kind relationships
Staff built positive relationships with people and communicated in ways that supported understanding, including using eye contact and patience.
“Staff had built positive relationships with people and showed patience and understanding.” from the report
Good care planning
Care plans included people's needs, risks, life history and preferences. They were reviewed regularly and described as person-centred.
“We found the plans of care to be well written, person-centred documents.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People's health was monitored and the home sought advice from relevant professionals. People were offered food choices and help to eat and drink when needed.
“People's nutritional needs were being met.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Regular audits covered areas such as incidents, infection control, care records, medicines, catering and health and safety. Managers took action when issues were found.
“There was an effective quality monitoring system to identify issues in service delivery and areas for improvement.” from the report
Medicines storage
seriousThe medicines store was left unlocked and one cupboard did not have a working lock. Loose medicines were also waiting to be returned to the pharmacy, so inspectors recommended staff be reminded of the medicines policy.
“We noted on one occasion, the door to the medicines store room had been left unlocked, and unattended.” from the report
Information when people arrive from hospital
needs fixingInspectors found two recent inappropriate or adverse admissions. One person arrived with incorrect medicines and another with an inappropriately assessed pressure sore, so better communication with health service colleagues was recommended.
“One person had been discharged from the hospital with incorrect medication, and another person had been discharged with an inappropriately assessed pressure sore.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after inspectors found the medicines store unlocked and a cupboard without a working lock?
- 02How are staff who administer medicines now reminded about the medicines policy and procedure?
- 03How do you check medicines, pressure sores and other key information before someone arrives from hospital?
- 04What discussions have continued with health service colleagues to prevent inappropriate admissions?
- 05How will you involve me or my relative in reviewing the care plan and risk assessments?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas, but it did not examine the circumstances of the death that prompted it; it examined risks relating to pressure ulcers. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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 Broadfield House Home for Older People
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Broadfield House Home for Older People →
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Broadfield House Home for Older People →
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.