CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bronte
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with the building, infection control, staff checks and oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. The inspection activity ran from 3 August to 23 August 2021, with a visit to the home on 3 August. Inspectors spoke with people, families, staff, health professionals and the manager. They also checked records, staff files, medicines practice, the building and infection control.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found poorly maintained bathrooms, a possible risk from a raised pond, shared bars of soap and cleaning problems. Staff recruitment records were incomplete. Training in fire safety, safeguarding, infection control and medicines was also out of date or not properly checked.
The home was not well-led enough. Audits had failed to find important problems, there was no improvement plan, and the provider did not have formal oversight of the manager's quality checks. The home had already been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and inspectors said enough improvement had not been made.
There were some positive findings. People and families spoke well of the care, staff were described as kind, and the manager was seen as open and approachable. The rating means there was limited assurance about safety and management, with an increased risk that people could be harmed.
Kind, person-centred care
People, families and professionals gave positive feedback about the care. Staff were said to know people well and understand their individual needs.
“The culture was open and person-centred; one visiting professional told us that staff had worked hard to understand a person's individual needs.” from the report
Open management
Families and staff said the manager listened, communicated openly and was easy to approach.
“Staff and families consistently told us the registered manager was approachable, listened to any concerns and was open and honest.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs, with a stable team and little sickness.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. There was a stable staff team in place and minimal sickness.” from the report
Some safety improvements
Fire systems were being tested and people's individual risks were reviewed. Work had also addressed earlier concerns about legionella.
“Improvements in record keeping had been made and records showed the fire systems were routinely tested and fire drills had taken place.” from the report
Building safety
seriousSome environmental risks had not been assessed. Inspectors found a broken sink support with sharp metal exposed and said concerns about a raised pond had not been addressed.
“Risks relating to the physical environment had not been identified or assessed.” from the report
Infection control
seriousPoorly maintained bathrooms made cleaning difficult. Shared soap, uncleaned shared equipment and a damaged, urine-smelling carpet added to the infection risk.
“Systems in place were not robust enough to protect people from the risk of the spread of infection.” from the report
Staff recruitment checks
seriousThe records checked did not show full work histories, suitable references or interviews. This meant the home could not demonstrate that staff had been recruited safely.
“The provider was unable to demonstrate staff were recruited safely and had the appropriate skills and knowledge required.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits did not identify important safety and recruitment problems. There was no improvement plan and no formal provider oversight of the manager's quality checks.
“Quality assurance and governance systems had failed to identify risks in relation to health and safety and recruitment.” from the report
Out-of-date training
needs fixingStaff had not had recent training in fire safety, safeguarding, infection control or medicines. Medicines competency checks were not recorded.
“We recommended that the provider ensure all staff who administer medicines complete the appropriate training and have their competency assessed and recorded.” from the report
- 01Has the communal bathroom been refurbished or temporarily repaired, and when was this completed?
- 02What risk assessment and safety controls are now in place for the raised pond?
- 03How do you now make sure staff have completed current fire, safeguarding, infection control and medicines training?
- 04Do staff files now contain full work histories, references and interview records?
- 05How often are infection control audits completed, and how are problems recorded and followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 September 2021 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, April 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but serious gaps in fire, water safety and management checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 February 2020. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, recruitment files, training records, complaints, audits and safety records.
People were generally treated kindly and with respect. Their care plans were reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and people received food, health care and support suited to their needs. The caring and responsive ratings were Good.
However, checks on fire safety, hot water and Legionella were not reliably recorded or available. There was no premises fire risk assessment, fire drill records were missing, and the fish pond had not been risk assessed after a concern was raised.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, effective and well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. This means the home had some good care arrangements, but inspectors found important improvements were needed.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and friendly. Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that privacy, dignity and personal choices were respected.
“I get on very well with the staff. They are all really kind to me” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Only trained and assessed staff gave medicines.
“Medicine management was in line with safe practice.” from the report
Personal care planning
Care plans contained information about people's needs and preferences. They were reviewed each month and people were involved where possible.
“People were included in the assessment but also information gathered from hospital staff, the person's relatives and any other health and social care professionals involved in the person's care.” from the report
Complaints handled
The home had a complaints procedure. The two complaints recorded in the previous year were handled and resolved appropriately.
“Records showed the complaints had been handled appropriately and resolved satisfactorily.” from the report
Fire and water safety
seriousRecords did not show that fire alarms, fire drills, hot water and cold-water safety checks were completed reliably. The fish pond also had not been risk assessed after a local authority concern.
“Risks to people in respect of fire safety were not managed.” from the report
Weak safety records and oversight
seriousImportant safety records were missing or could not be validated. The quality assurance system had not found the problems before the inspection.
“The quality assurance systems and governance arrangements had not identified the issues we found during inspection so this had not led to the improvements that were needed.” from the report
Activities not personalised
needs fixingActivities were arranged on weekday afternoons, but inspectors found they were not sufficiently linked to people's interests. Most people spoken with preferred to spend time alone in their rooms.
“The activities were far from being person-centred or based on people's interests or hobbies.” from the report
- 01Can you show us recent records of fire alarm tests, fire drills and the premises fire risk assessment?
- 02How often are hot water outlets and the cold-water storage supply checked, and can we see the latest records?
- 03What has been done to improve the tired décor, the large fish pond and the limited communal bathroom facilities?
- 04How are activities now linked to each person's interests, hobbies and choice to spend time alone?
- 05Who is responsible for safety checks and quality monitoring, and how do you make sure important records are complete and accurate?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, including the premises and care provided, and all five CQC rating questions were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 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.
Every inspection of Bronte
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- September 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.