CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Broadstreet House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, effective safeguarding arrangements, assessed risks and well-managed medicines. Incidents and accidents were recorded and checked for learning.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supervised, and people received help to access GPs and other health professionals. Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards processes were understood and followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were calm, kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions, supported to remain independent and treated as individuals with privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs, wishes, skills and aspirations and were reviewed with them. People were supported with chosen activities, work placements, volunteering and community life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and provider had effective systems for monitoring quality and risk. Inspectors found that previous weaknesses in medicines monitoring and quality checks had been addressed.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Broadstreet House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier legal breaches corrected.
Inspectors visited on 26 October 2017 after giving 12 hours' notice. They observed care, spoke with four people, 12 staff and two health and social care professionals, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported 18 people with mild to moderate learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found all five areas were Good. People were supported to make choices, stay safe, access health care, take part in activities and build independence. Staff were described as friendly, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs.
At the previous comprehensive inspection in August 2016, the home had breached rules about consent, medicines and quality monitoring. Inspectors found improvements at this visit. Medicines checks, Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards work, and quality audits were now effective.
Medicines managed safely
The home had introduced stronger checks for storage temperatures, medicines errors and administration records. Inspectors found the records complete and the medicines correctly accounted for.
“The MAR sheets were being completed correctly by staff, there were no gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them without rushing. Inspectors saw calm, reassuring relationships and respect for privacy.
“We observed all staff to be calm, reassuring and individually responsive to people at all times.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, abilities and goals. People and, where appropriate, their families were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“People's needs had been fully assessed and care plans had been developed on an individual basis.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to choose activities, work placements, volunteering and community opportunities. Some people could go out independently, while others received individual support.
“Opportunities continued for people to develop and progress through work placements, volunteering or attaining vocational qualifications.” from the report
Improved leadership and checks
The provider and registered manager had reviewed the quality monitoring system after the previous inspection. Inspectors found the audits now covered all aspects of the service.
“This showed that audits were effective and covered every aspect of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check medicines storage temperatures and follow up any missed or incorrect doses?
- 02How do you assess whether my relative can make each important decision, and how are best-interest decisions recorded?
- 03If my relative is subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard, how often is it reviewed and what changes would trigger a new assessment?
- 04How do you use quality audits and incident reviews to identify and correct problems?
- 05How would you support my relative during a fire or other emergency, including any personal evacuation plan?
This was a planned inspection that considered all five CQC questions and the overall rating, using observations, discussions, feedback and records; the previous inspection had identified breaches that this visit checked for improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2017 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, October 2016
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but serious shortfalls in medicines, mental capacity and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 and 25 August 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, care managers and a health professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, training and quality audits.
The home was caring and responsive. Staff knew people well, treated them with respect and supported them to make choices, keep relationships and take part in work, education and community activities. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed and the home was clean.
The home was not always safe, effective or well-led. Medicines errors were not always followed by action to reduce risk, and there were gaps in checking medicine storage temperatures. Mental Capacity Act assessments were inconsistent, and some restrictions on people's freedom had not been referred to the local authority for authorisation. Quality checks had not found these problems.
The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently meeting the required standard. The report says the provider had to send CQC an action plan, and CQC would check that the action was taken.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff listened to people, treated them as equals and respected their privacy and choices.
“Staff were kind and caring and were genuinely interested in people's well-being.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, routines and goals. People helped write their own plans, using pictures and other information to make them easier to understand.
“Staff were knowledgeable about people's individual support needs, interests, likes and dislikes to enable them to provide personalised care.” from the report
Active lives
People were supported to take part in work, education, hobbies, holidays and community activities that matched their interests and abilities.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities, including education and work opportunities.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff received training, supervision and appraisals, and recruitment checks were completed.
“There were enough staff who were sufficiently qualified and competent to support the people at the service.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousTwo recent medicines incidents were not followed by enough action to reduce possible risks. The home also could not show that medicines stored in bedrooms were kept at the correct temperature.
“When errors occurred, action had not always been taken to minimise the risks to people.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits and monitoring systems did not identify the medicines and mental capacity shortfalls before the inspection.
“Quality monitoring systems were not wholly effective because they had not identified the shortfalls in the management of medicines nor in applying the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made so that missed or incorrect medicines are acted on immediately and risks are recorded?
- 02How are medicines kept at the correct temperature in people's bedrooms, and who checks and records this?
- 03How do you assess a person's capacity for each specific decision, including everyday choices?
- 04Which people have restrictions on their freedom in the community, and have all required local authority applications been made?
- 05How do your current audits identify medicines, consent and care risks before they affect people?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 October 2016 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 Broadstreet House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2017Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
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
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.