CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Broadview
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding systems, suitable risk assessments, enough staff and safe medicines arrangements. Staff knew how to respond to risks and emergencies.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. Staff had relevant training, people received appropriate food and healthcare, and decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs. People were supported to communicate, make choices and maintain privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and included activities, trips and help to develop daily living skills. Inspectors said end-of-life plans mainly covered resuscitation and hospital decisions and needed more person-centred detail.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive management, regular audits and a clear focus on improvement. Relatives and staff gave positive feedback about how the home was run.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements needed to end-of-life planning and the feel of the building.
This was an unannounced planned inspection by two inspectors on 30 January 2020. They spoke with staff, observed care, reviewed care and medicines records, checked recruitment and management records, and contacted relatives and an external professional afterwards. People were not able to share their views directly, so inspectors also used observation.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines management, clear risk assessments, kind relationships and personalised support. People were supported to make choices, build independence, join activities and access health services.
The home can support up to eight people and six people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors noted that its size was larger than current best practice guidance, but said the design and location reduced the impact. They also said the building had an institutional feel and that end-of-life care plans needed more detail.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with appropriate recruitment checks. The home did not use agency staff and could arrange cover across the provider's three services.
“Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to help ensure staff were of good character, physically and mentally fit for the roles they performed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, communication and behaviour triggers. Staff supported people to make choices and become more independent.
“People received care that was individualised because staff knew and understood people well.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported with everyday tasks, hobbies, outings and holidays. The home used an Active Support approach to help people take part in their own lives.
“People were provided with a range of opportunities for engagement including music sessions, trampolining, walks in the park, arts and crafts and dining out.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff respond sensitively to people's needs. Relatives described the care as kind and supportive.
“Staff were responsive to people's needs and demonstrated kindness towards people they supported.” from the report
Quality oversight
Regular audits covered care plans, risks, medicines, incidents and health and safety. Action plans were followed up when shortfalls were identified.
“This enabled any trends or patterns to be identified to ensure the service was meeting people's needs safely and effectively.” from the report
Building felt institutional
minorInspectors said parts of the environment lacked homely touches. The registered manager agreed to review refurbishment plans.
“We discussed that the service had an institutional feel and lacked some homely touches.” from the report
End-of-life plans needed more detail
needs fixingPlans recorded some important choices, but did not give enough personalised guidance about comfort, reassurance, emotional needs or spiritual needs. No end-of-life care was being provided during the inspection.
“The registered manager was aware of what was required to support people with end of life care when needed and reported that staff training was scheduled in this area.” from the report
Home larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to eight people. Inspectors noted this was larger than current best practice guidance, although they said the design and setting reduced the negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made, or are planned, to make the building feel more homely?
- 02How would you record and follow my relative's comfort, emotional and spiritual wishes at the end of life?
- 03What end-of-life training have staff completed, and when was it last updated?
- 04How do you make sure my relative can build independence and take part in activities they enjoy?
- 05How do you manage staffing cover across the three services if there is sickness or annual leave?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five key questions, with care and the premises both included; people living at the home could not give inspectors their views directly. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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, August 2017
Broadview was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas remaining Good.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 11 July 2017. One inspector visited the home, spoke with staff and the management team, reviewed care and staff records, and observed people receiving care. People could not share their views directly, so the inspector also spoke with two relatives by telephone.
Inspectors found that people were safe and that risks were assessed and managed. There were enough trained staff, medicines were managed safely, and people received support with food, drink and health needs. Staff understood mental capacity and DoLS requirements, although some DoLS applications were still waiting for authorisation.
People were treated kindly and with dignity. Care plans reflected individual needs and interests, and people were supported with activities such as day centres, horse riding and cycling. Relatives knew how to complain and said they felt able to give feedback.
The home had effective checks on the quality of care. The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was rated Good. This was the same as at the previous inspection.
Risk management
The home assessed risks across many parts of people's lives and put measures in place to reduce them.
“Risks to people's safety and wellbeing were identified across all aspects of their lives and control measures were in place to reduce these risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed comforting people, respecting privacy and treating them with dignity.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a thoughtful and considerate way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's preferences and support needs. People were helped to take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People's care records contained personalised information about them, such as their preferences and life history.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider used regular audits covering areas such as medicines, food hygiene and care plans. Inspectors found that shortfalls were acted on promptly.
“Where shortfalls were identified, records demonstrated that these were acted upon promptly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Some DoLS applications were pending at the inspection. What is the current status of any DoLS applications for my relative?
- 02How are staffing levels decided for each person's needs, and how do you cover sickness or absences?
- 03How often are staff assessed as competent to administer medicines, and how are medicine errors handled?
- 04How will my relative's communication needs, preferences and interests be recorded and reviewed?
- 05What quality checks are currently carried out, and what improvements have been made since the 2017 inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the home remained Good in every area since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 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 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2013.
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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.