CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Broadgate Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Broadgate Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 2 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, and on whether staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitor checks, visiting, testing, personal protective equipment, vaccinations and safe admissions. People were supported to go out safely, with risk assessments and measures to reduce infection.
The home was rated "Inspected but not rated" overall and for safe care. This means the visit checked specific areas but did not give a new quality rating.
Infection control
Infection risks were assessed and managed well. The home had plans for preventing and managing outbreaks.
“Infection risks had been thoroughly assessed and managed well.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors were checked on arrival and families received clear information. Different visiting options were available, including rooms, a pod, the garden and video calls.
“People were supported to receive visitors in a safe manner in line with current guidance.” from the report
PPE and testing
Staff had designated areas to put on and remove PPE safely. The home also organised regular testing and tracked relevant dates after positive tests.
“Staff were observed to be following current guidance on the level of PPE to be wearing.” from the report
Safe community access
People were supported to go out safely. Risk assessments and other measures were used where people could not keep distance or isolate.
“People had been supported to go out into the community safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked and supported to visit safely?
- 02How do you manage visits and outings when there is an infection risk or outbreak?
- 03How do you make sure staff complete testing and use the correct PPE?
- 04What contingency plans are in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
- 05How do you safely admit new residents from hospitals, other services or the community?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicine administration, but concerns about night staffing, care planning and leadership.
Inspectors visited without notice on 4 June 2019 over two days. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed lunchtime care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
People were generally treated kindly and with respect. Staff were described as caring and knowledgeable. Medicines were usually given safely, people enjoyed the food, and daily activities had improved. The home also supported people with choices, movement, healthcare and contact with families.
The main problems were too few staff at night, incomplete care plans and weak planning for some people's end of life care. Inspectors also had concerns about clinical leadership and whether managers consistently followed through on improvements. The home remained Requires Improvement overall, but it was no longer in breach of regulations relating to governance after improvements since the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently described staff as caring, compassionate and respectful. Staff knew people's personalities, preferences and histories.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Medicines usually handled safely
Staff gave medicines as prescribed, recorded them after people took them and had suitable training. Medicines were stored safely, although a small number of out-of-date fridge medicines were removed during the inspection.
“We observed staff administering medicines in a safe way ensuring that people took their medicines as prescribed, offering support when needed.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had recruited two activity co-ordinators. Activities were offered every day, including group sessions and one-to-one activities for people who stayed in their rooms.
“We noted that organised activities were being provided every day.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make daily choices, move around the home and maintain relationships, faiths and interests. Staff also respected privacy by knocking before entering rooms.
“People were offered options and supported to make choices over their daily lives in the service.” from the report
Improved governance
Quality checks had become more effective, including monitoring accidents and falls. The home was no longer in breach of the governance regulation identified at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found sufficient improvements had been made so that the service was no longer in breach of regulation in this area.” from the report
Not enough night staff
seriousInspectors were concerned that three care staff and one nurse at night might not be enough, particularly upstairs where some people needed two staff. This could delay responses to call bells or emergencies.
“There were not always sufficient staff deployed within the service to meet people's needs.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingSome people's end of life wishes, religious needs and pain management requirements were not fully recorded. Inspectors recommended reviewing end of life care planning.
“Advance care planning was not completed and was not person centred with the person's wishes, including religious needs at the end of their life, clearly stated.” from the report
- 01How many care staff and nurses are on duty overnight, especially on the upstairs floor, and how do you check this is enough for current needs?
- 02How will you record and monitor measurable targets for people's weight, fluid intake and other identified risks?
- 03How will you make sure each person's end of life wishes, religious needs and pain management preferences are discussed and recorded?
- 04Has the deputy manager with a clinical background been appointed, and what clinical oversight is now in place?
- 05How do you check that care plans are kept together, up to date and easy for agency or new staff to use?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions and both the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was also Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 July 2019 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 Broadgate Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.