CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Broadoak Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about staffing, protective equipment, testing, visiting, admissions and outbreak management. They found some damaged equipment and worn bathrooms, although the damaged equipment was replaced during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not rated or assessed in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated or assessed in the report.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements, but some bathrooms needed updating.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 9 February 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and at staffing pressures.
Inspectors found safe staffing levels, trained staff, effective use of protective equipment, regular cleaning and up-to-date infection control policies. Visiting, testing, admissions and outbreak arrangements were also viewed positively.
The home was clean, but some equipment was damaged and no longer fit for purpose. It was removed and replaced during the inspection. Several bathrooms were worn and needed updating, especially their flooring and tiling.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a new overall quality rating or a rated result for Safe.
Staffing
Safe staffing levels were maintained, and the provider had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
“Safe staffing levels were maintained at the service.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had completed infection control and protective equipment training. The manager also carried out refresher training and competency checks.
“All staff had completed training in relation to infection prevention and control (IPC) and correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE)” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning had been increased during the pandemic, including frequent cleaning of high-touch areas and communal spaces.
“During the day high touch areas were cleaned every two hours and communal areas were cleaned every four hours with appropriate cleaning products.” from the report
Visiting and infection controls
The home had clear visiting procedures and inspectors were assured that visitors were protected from catching and spreading infections.
“The service had clear visiting protocols in place and information was provided to all visitors to ensure they were familiar with IPC and PPE procedures.” from the report
Worn bathrooms
needs fixingSeveral communal and individual bathrooms were worn and needed updating so infection control standards could be maintained, particularly the flooring and tiling.
“several communal and individual bathrooms were worn and required updating to ensure IPC standards could be maintained” from the report
Damaged equipment
minorSome equipment was no longer fit for purpose because of significant damage. Inspectors said it was removed and replaced immediately.
“We saw some equipment was no longer fit for purpose due to significant damage.” from the report
- 01Have the worn communal and individual bathrooms now been updated, especially the flooring and tiling?
- 02How do you check that equipment remains fit for purpose, and what happened after the damaged equipment was replaced?
- 03Are staffing pressures still affecting the home, and what measures are in place if they increase?
- 04How are visitors given information about infection control and protective equipment procedures?
- 05How are activities provided so that people can take part equally while maintaining infection control measures?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices and staffing pressures; it was inspected but not rated and did not provide ratings for the other areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, December 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with four people living at the home, three staff members, the registered manager and a healthcare professional. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and management records.
The inspectors found that people felt safe and well cared for. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and provided kind and attentive support. Staffing levels were sufficient, medicines were managed safely, and risks to people's health and safety were assessed.
People received enough food and drink, support with healthcare and a range of activities. The home was clean and care plans were personalised. The home had systems to monitor quality, handle complaints and learn from incidents.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same as the previous rating, published on 2 May 2017.
Kind and attentive staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and care. Staff knew people's needs, likes and dislikes well.
“Our observations showed staff were kind, caring, friendly and attentive.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were administered safely and staff competence was checked.
“Inspectors observed, and staff confirmed there were adequate staffing numbers to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's abilities, preferences and how staff should provide support. People were involved in planning their care.
“People's care plans contained personalised information detailing how they wanted their care to be delivered.” from the report
Good links with healthcare services
The home made referrals when needed and worked with healthcare professionals to support people's health.
“Records showed referrals were made to the dietician, GP and community nursing services when required.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's risk assessments if their health or needs change?
- 02How will you support my relative's communication needs, including if they need information in a different format?
- 03What activities are available, and how will you match them to my relative's interests and abilities?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in planning and reviewing their care?
- 05How do you check that medicines are given safely and that staff remain competent?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC key questions, and the previous Good ratings in all five areas remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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 Broadoak Grange
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.