CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bronswick House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and medicines, safeguarding and risk management were handled well. However, some areas were not clean or in good condition, creating an infection risk, and the report says the service was not always safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had suitable training, people were supported with food and healthcare, and mental capacity requirements were followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, patience, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's preferences and communication needs. People were offered activities, social opportunities and a clear way to raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks were not effective enough to identify problems with cleanliness, repairs and infection control. Improvements had been introduced, but the provider breached Regulation 17 because its governance systems were not robust.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care alongside weaknesses in cleaning, building maintenance and quality checks.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. Inspectors visited on 3 and 10 January 2024, spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, observed care, checked records and walked around the building.
People generally received safe, effective, caring and responsive support. Staff understood people's needs, supported independence, handled medicines safely and provided personalised care. People described staff as kind and patient, and said they had enough help with their daily needs.
The main problems were the cleanliness and condition of parts of the building, including damp walls and areas that had not been cleaned thoroughly. Most issues had been addressed by the inspection, including a deep clean and the recruitment of domestic staff. However, the home's checks had failed to find these problems, so well-led was rated Requires Improvement and the provider breached Regulation 17.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were polite, patient and kind. Inspectors saw warm, unrushed conversations and support that respected people's dignity and choices.
“The staff are so kind and patient I love it here.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and aspirations. Staff encouraged independence and involved people in decisions about daily life.
“People's care and support was centred around their choices and preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines and safeguarding
Staff understood safeguarding procedures, risks were assessed, and trained staff gave medicines safely. Medicines records and audits were in place.
“People received their medication safely by trained staff.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to follow their interests, socialise and maintain important relationships. An activity coordinator provided additional stimulation and support.
“People were offered a range of activities and opportunities to socialise by staff.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousSome rooms and communal areas had not been cleaned thoroughly, and there were damp walls and damaged wallpaper. A deep clean had taken place and the environment was cleaner, but inspectors recommended continued monitoring.
“Some areas of the home were not always clean and in a good condition.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits were often tick-box exercises and did not identify important problems with cleaning, repairs and infection control. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.
“The provider did not have an effective management structure.” from the report
Domestic staffing and building upkeep
needs fixingThere had been a period without a domestic staff member, which contributed to the building not being cleaned and maintained properly. The provider had recruited someone by the inspection.
“We have been short of a cleaner and staff had been doing more.” from the report
- 01Have all damp walls, damaged wallpaper and minor repairs in communal areas and bathrooms now been completed?
- 02How often are communal bathrooms, bedrooms and shared areas cleaned, and who checks that this has been done properly?
- 03What changes have been made to the audit and quality-checking systems since inspectors found they had missed cleanliness and infection-control problems?
- 04Has the domestic staffing shortfall been fully resolved, and what happens if domestic staff are absent?
- 05How will you show families that the improvements required in the action plan are being maintained?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection prompted by concerns about infection control, building maintenance and quality assurance, and it covered all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 2024 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 Bronswick House
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2022Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2023
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2023.
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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of Blackpool
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 £1,250 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.