CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Broadmeadow
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were being followed. They were also assured about PPE, testing, social distancing, admissions and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were being followed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because the home was being considered as a designated care setting for people discharged from hospital with Covid-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was following rules on shielding, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. Visitors had to arrange visits in advance and were given personal protective equipment.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the wider areas of care.
Arranged visits and PPE
Visitors had to arrange visits in advance and were given individual PPE packs.
“Visitors were given individual personal protective equipment (PPE) packs.” from the report
Support during isolation
The home provided activity packs and helped people keep in contact with friends and family while isolating.
“There was also support available to enable people to keep in regular contact with friends and family.” from the report
Communication support
Communication cards in several languages were available to help people with hearing difficulties understand staff wearing face masks.
“Communication cards were available in several languages to help people with hearing difficulties understand what staff wearing face masks were saying.” from the report
Separate staff team
A separate staff team was already in place for the isolation unit.
“There was a separate staff team already in place for the isolation unit caring for people who had just arrived at the service.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not explain what specific changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control changes have you made since inspectors signposted you to resources to develop your approach?
- 02How are visits arranged now, and what PPE is provided to visitors?
- 03How do you help residents keep in contact with family and friends when they are isolating?
- 04How is the separate staff team for people arriving at the home being used?
- 05What arrangements are in place for people with hearing difficulties when staff are wearing face masks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but staff supervision and some nutrition records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 and 3 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and visiting nurses. They also checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
People were safe and treated with kindness and respect. The home had enough staff, managed medicines safely, supported people's health and offered personalised care. People could make choices, stay in touch with relatives and raise concerns.
The overall rating was Good. Effective care was rated Requires Improvement because staff supervision did not always follow the home's policy, and some food and fluid records were incomplete. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Well-led also improved to Good, while Safe, Caring and Responsive remained Good.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and safe systems for ordering, storing and giving medicines. Medicines errors had reduced after improvements following the previous inspection.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and respectful. Inspectors saw patient, calm interactions and found that privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“People were treated with respect. People were involved in their care and enabled to share their views on the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, histories and desired outcomes. Staff knew people's choices and reviewed care when needs changed.
“People received person centred care from staff who knew their preferences.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingAlthough staff had supervisors and described support as good, supervision was not always provided as often as the provider's policy required. Inspectors recommended that the provider review its policy and practice.
“Some staff had not received supervision since April 2019.” from the report
Fluid and food records
needs fixingSome food charts were incomplete because information was recorded elsewhere. For one person, fluid amounts were not consistently totalled and staff did not have a daily target or clear instructions if it was not reached.
“for one person amounts were not consistently totalled up to monitor their daily input; and there was no guidance for staff on what their daily target input was or what to do if not reached.” from the report
Changing staff arrangements
minorTwo staff said changes to rotas had made it harder to get to know people. The manager said this had improved but acknowledged the new arrangements were not yet established.
“Two staff told us that changes to staffing rota arrangements had meant it was difficult to get to know people.” from the report
- 01How often will staff receive supervision, and how do you check that it follows your policy?
- 02How do you record and total fluid intake for people who need monitoring?
- 03What daily fluid targets are set, and what action is taken if someone does not reach them?
- 04How do staff rotas support continuity so that staff can get to know each person well?
- 05What changes were made after the earlier medicines concerns, and how do you check that medicines remain safe?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the previous overall rating and the Well-led rating reviewed after earlier concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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 Broadmeadow
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.