CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Broadland House Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Broadland House Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement because inspectors found unmanaged safety risks and weak quality checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 29 April 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after concerns about medicines, the environment and staffing. They spoke with one person, relatives, staff and health professionals, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Loose radiator covers, unsecured wardrobes and unlocked medicine cabinets created risks. Required weight checks for four people at risk of malnutrition had not happened for four months. The home had no suitable weighing equipment and had not used another way to manage the risk.
The home had caring and open relationships with families and staff. Medicines were being given safely, staffing levels had increased, and care records were person centred. However, audits had not led to timely action and the service did not properly analyse incident patterns. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in October 2019, to Requires Improvement.
Medicines
Inspectors found that people received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicine audits had identified and addressed areas for improvement.
“People living at the service received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Staffing
Staffing levels had been increased by one person on each day shift. Inspectors said there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“This meant there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people living at the service.” from the report
Person-centred records
Care plans gave detailed, clear guidance about people's individual needs. Staff recorded care using handheld devices so records were updated in real time.
“Care plans provided detailed person centred guidance which was easy to understand.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives said communication was good and that they were kept informed about incidents and changes during the COVID-19 period.
“Relatives said the communication was good between the home and families.” from the report
Environmental hazards
seriousLoose radiator covers, unstable wardrobes and unlocked medicine cabinets created risks of harm. The provider took immediate action after inspectors raised these concerns.
“Medicine cabinets, holding prescribed medication and items which could harm a person if ingested, were found unlocked in people's bedrooms.” from the report
Missed nutrition monitoring
seriousFour people had not had weight checks for four months, despite health professionals advising regular monitoring. Staff had not used another method to reduce the risk.
“However, this had not been done for four months as the service did not have a hoist weighing machine.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not identify or deal with some risks promptly. The service also did not analyse all incidents for patterns that might show where action was needed.
“The governance systems in place had not been effective at identifying or improving risks within the service.” from the report
- 01Have the loose radiator covers and unsecured wardrobes been repaired and checked recently?
- 02How are medicine cabinets kept locked and checked now?
- 03How are people at risk of malnutrition weighed and monitored if the hoist weighing machine is unavailable?
- 04How are incidents now analysed for patterns and followed up through the quality assurance system?
- 05What action plan did you send to CQC, and what improvements have been completed since the inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and detailed plans for visitors and possible Covid-19 outbreaks.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 August 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice in visitor planning, social distancing, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks safely.
The home supported residents to keep in touch with relatives through video calls, letters, telephone calls and photographs. One Covid-19 case had not spread further because of the infection control measures in place.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. The Safe question was marked "Inspected but not rated", so this report does not give a full picture of the home's care.
Visitor arrangements
The home had clear risk assessments covering social visits in the garden and visits for end of life care.
“Planning and management of visitors including comprehensive risk assessments, which was clear, easy to follow and covered all areas, both for end of life care and socially distanced visits in the garden” from the report
Outbreak control
The home had detailed plans for managing an outbreak. Inspectors said one positive Covid-19 case had not spread further.
“Due to the robust infection prevention and control systems in place, the service had contained the virus and prevented it from spreading further.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Residents were supported to stay in contact with relatives in several ways, including video calls, letters, telephone calls and photographs.
“The people who used the service were supported to keep in touch with their family members via a variety of methods including video conferencing, writing letters and the telephone.” from the report
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE, testing, social distancing and cleaning measures to reduce infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visitor risk assessments and garden visits changed since the inspection?
- 02What is your current plan if a resident or staff member tests positive for an infection?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested when there is an infection risk?
- 04How do you check that cleaning, PPE and isolation arrangements are being followed?
- 05How will you help my relative keep in touch with family if visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a full overall rating or assess all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 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.
Every inspection of Broadland House Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Broadland House Residential Care Home →
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Broadland House Residential Care Home →
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 January 2015.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.