CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Broadmead Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe. They found arrangements covering visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
Inspectors visited the home on 15 October 2020. The visit was announced and looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks safely. The infection control policy was up to date.
The home had created a sheltered visiting pod with a clear screen and intercom. It had also introduced visitor temperature screening, improved cleaning arrangements and acted early to reduce the risk of COVID-19 entering the home.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full overall quality rating or ratings for care, effectiveness, responsiveness or leadership.
Safe visiting
The home had made arrangements for visits to take place in a sheltered space with a sealed screen and intercom. This also helped some people with dementia communicate with visitors.
“The provider had installed a visiting "pod" in the garden which allowed visits to take place in a sheltered, enclosed environment.” from the report
Committed staff team
Inspectors found that the owner, manager and staff team were committed to keeping people safe during the pandemic.
“The whole team were committed to keeping people safe during the pandemic.” from the report
Early action
The provider acted early in the pandemic and started a home lockdown before this was included in official guidance.
“The provider had been proactive in responding to the risk of COVID-19 early in the pandemic.” from the report
Improved cleanliness
The home sourced new cleaning products and made some high-risk surfaces easier to clean thoroughly.
“The provider had acted to make sure new standards of hygiene and cleanliness could be maintained.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was being used effectively and safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors screened and their visits recorded?
- 02How is the visiting pod or another safe visiting arrangement being used now?
- 03How often is the infection prevention and control policy reviewed and updated?
- 04How are residents and staff tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 05What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the other four CQC questions were not inspected or rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 November 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, December 2018
Broadmead Rest Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some medicines records were not accurate.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 7 November 2018. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, visitors, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care, medicines and equipment, and checked care records, recruitment files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and staff who understood safeguarding. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and care was tailored to their needs.
There were some shortfalls. Records for two medicines needing extra security were not accurate, and tablets in one bottle could not be fully accounted for. The laundry workflow did not follow current infection control guidance. The home acted promptly on these issues, including extra staff training and changes to the laundry arrangements.
The overall Good rating means the home was meeting the relevant standards at the time of this inspection. The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the March 2016 inspection, and the report says those earlier improvements had been sustained.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people thoughtfully and maintaining their dignity and privacy. People said staff were kind, polite and friendly.
“Throughout our inspection, we observed people being treated in kind, thoughtful and respectful ways.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences and meaningful interests. Staff adapted their support when people's needs changed.
“Care plans provided specific details of how people's needs were being met.” from the report
Activities and engagement
People could join a broad programme of activities, including events with local community groups. Activities were also provided individually and in people's rooms.
“A wide range of activities and events were planned for December.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and safe recruitment checks. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse or other concerns.
“Staffing levels and deployment of staff were sufficient to meet the needs of people living in the home.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingRecords for two medicines needing extra security were not accurate. One medicine had not been entered in the required book, and another record had not been updated when a person took it away.
“We found accurate records were not maintained for two medicines.” from the report
Medicine stock checks
needs fixingSome tablets had been halved or had broken down, so the amount in stock could not be checked accurately. The report says there was no actual administration error, and the home took prompt action.
“Therefore the actual amounts in stock could not be accurately accounted for.” from the report
Supervision records
minorNot all staff had supervision records at the two-month frequency set by the provider. Staff nevertheless said they felt supported.
“Whilst not all staff had supervisions recorded at the two month frequency as stated in the provider's supervision contract, staff felt well supported.” from the report
- 01How are medicines needing extra security recorded, counted and checked now?
- 02What extra medicines training was provided after the inspection, and how is staff practice checked?
- 03How do you keep dirty and clean laundry separate under the current infection control process?
- 04How often will staff receive supervision, and how do you make sure this is recorded?
- 05How are care plans and activities adapted if my relative's needs or interests change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 2018 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 Broadmead Rest Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.