CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Broadview
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable arrangements for risk management, staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and learning from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support based on assessed needs and current guidance. Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped with eating, health care, communication and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care and how the home was run.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was exceptionally personalised. People were helped to develop skills, become more independent, maintain relationships, access education and work opportunities, and take part in activities that mattered to them.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- The home had a strong person-centred culture and effective quality checks. People, relatives and staff were involved in service development, and the manager worked with other professionals to improve outcomes.
What inspectors found, May 2020
Broadview was rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally responsive and well-led care, with the other areas rated Good.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 11 March 2020. They spoke with four people, five staff members, four relatives and external professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files, training information and quality checks.
People were described as safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew them well. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, risk management and health care arrangements were all found to be suitable.
The strongest findings were about personalised support and leadership. People were supported to make choices, build skills, become more independent, join activities and take part in their local community.
The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection to Outstanding. Safe, Effective and Caring remained Good, while Responsive and Well-led improved from Good to Outstanding.
Personalised support
Staff knew what mattered to each person and tailored support to their interests, communication needs and goals.
“People received exceptionally personalised support that was unique to and inclusive for them.” from the report
Community involvement
People took part in activities, education, volunteering and social opportunities in the local community.
“People were a part of their local community and were supported to access a wealth of activities and opportunities.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm and trusting relationships between people and staff. People were involved in decisions about their care and home.
“People were treated with care and kindness by staff who had built positive relationships with them.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team had clear values, involved people in running the home and acted on quality checks and feedback.
“The service was exceptionally well led.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess my relative's interests, communication needs and personal goals before they move in?
- 02How would you support my relative to build independence in everyday tasks while managing risks?
- 03What activities, education, volunteering or community opportunities could be offered to my relative?
- 04How would my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the support plan and making decisions?
- 05How are medicines reviewed, especially medicines that may affect alertness or engagement?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five key questions, including the accommodation and personal care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with medicines management improved since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 July 2017. One inspector spoke with three people, three staff and the manager. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff recruitment and training records, complaints, accidents, activities and quality checks. They also observed staff supporting people and received feedback from one relative.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found good ratings in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and treated them with kindness and respect. Care plans were detailed and personalised, and staffing levels met people's needs.
At the previous inspection, the safe rating needed improvement because medicines records and checks were not always managed well. This inspection found that medicines were now managed safely. There was not a registered manager on the inspection date, but an application from the returning manager was approved shortly afterwards.
Medicines improved
Medicines were stored, recorded and given in line with prescriptions. This addressed the safe medicines concern from the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found the management of medicines was safe and people received their medicines in line with their prescriptions and on time.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Staffing levels met people's needs, and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work. Staff received training and regular supervision.
“Staffing levels met the needs of people living at the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, history, likes, dislikes and goals. Staff supported people to make choices and develop their independence.
“Care plans were very personalised and contained information about preferences, life history, likes and dislikes and their typical day.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff respected people's dignity, privacy and communication needs.
“The atmosphere of the service and the way that the staff interacted with the people who lived there can be described as similar to a family home.” from the report
One medicines protocol was missing
needs fixingProtocols were in place for as-required medicines except one recently prescribed medicine. The manager said they would put the missing protocol in place.
“Protocols for their use were in place for all except one recently prescribed an as required (PRN) medicine.” from the report
Some records needed updating
minorInspectors found some records were out of date. The audit had identified this and the manager had started taking action.
“We found some records required updating, the audit recognised this and the manager had already started to take action” from the report
Management changes
minorThere had been several management changes and the home did not have a registered manager on the inspection date. The returning manager's application was approved shortly afterwards.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager.” from the report
- 01Has the protocol for the recently prescribed as-required medicine now been completed and reviewed?
- 02Which care and other records needed updating, and how is the home checking that they remain current?
- 03How have the previous management changes affected staff continuity and the day-to-day support provided?
- 04Who is the registered manager now, and how can relatives raise concerns with them?
- 05How are people's activity choices and personal goals reviewed over time?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the report says the previous safe medicines concern had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 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.
Every inspection of Broadview
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- May 2020Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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.