CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Broomfield Residential Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, and inspectors found that risks were assessed and updated. Medicines were generally managed safely, but some instructions for medicines given only when needed needed more information.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before moving in, and staff had training and induction. Staff supervision meetings had not always been held regularly, but these were being brought up to date.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found kind, compassionate care. Staff knew people's preferences, respected privacy and dignity, and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People had activities, could see relatives without restrictions reported by one relative, and complaints were recorded and monitored.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had positive leadership, quality checks and links with health professionals. Some staff said they would benefit from more frequent staff meetings, and this was fed back to management.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines guidance and staff supervision still needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 31 January and 1 February 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files, training records and management audits.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found enough staff, detailed care plans, good infection control and a welcoming environment.
There were some areas to strengthen. Some instructions for medicines given only when needed did not contain enough information. Staff supervision meetings had not always taken place regularly, although both issues were being addressed.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published in September 2020. Effective, Caring and Responsive improved to Good, while Safe and Well-led remained Good.
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely and promptly. Recruitment checks were completed before new staff started their probationary period.
“Our observations confirmed there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as kind and compassionate. Inspectors saw people being treated with respect and supported to make choices.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, lifestyles and interests. Staff knew people well and adapted support to their individual needs.
“Care plans provided clear guidance for staff to follow which included information about people's likes, dislikes, lifestyle and interests.” from the report
Leadership and improvement
The home monitored care through audits and acted when improvements were needed. It also worked with health and social care professionals.
“Robust systems to review, audit and analyse data and other records ensured quality standards remained high.” from the report
Medicines instructions
needs fixingSome protocols for medicines given only when needed did not include enough information to make sure they were always given consistently. The report says this had not affected people's care, and action began during the inspection.
“Some areas of medicines management needed to be strengthened.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingStaff supervision meetings had not been held regularly. The home was working to bring them up to date so staff could discuss objectives, training and support needs.
“Staff supervision meetings had not been held regularly but these were in the process of being brought up to date” from the report
- 01Have all protocols for medicines given only when needed now been completed with enough information for staff?
- 02How often do staff now receive supervision meetings, and how is this checked?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed if my relative's needs change?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative, including if they preferred to stay in their room?
- 05How would the home support my relative's end of life wishes if they later needed this care?
This was a focused inspection to check improvements since the previous inspection, with infection prevention and control also reviewed under Safe; the report records ratings for all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2023 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 2020
Broomfield Residential Care rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found good progress in safety and leadership, but this focused inspection did not reassess all five areas.
Inspectors visited on 18, 19 and 27 August 2020. They spoke with one person, five family members and six staff. They also checked care records, risk assessments, staff recruitment files, medicines, staffing and management records.
They found improvements in medicines, cleanliness, infection control, care planning and the environment. Staff were described as kind and respectful. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. The overall rating remains Requires Improvement because this was a focused inspection. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used.
Safer medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. The electronic system helped staff give medicines at the prescribed time.
“An electronic medication administration system was in place which supported staff to administer medicines at the prescribed time and prompted them to make a record.” from the report
Clean and safer environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with improved infection control. Safety checks and changes to the building also helped reduce risks.
“We observed that the premises was clean, tidy and hygienic.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff respected people's privacy, dignity and independence. Inspectors saw positive, kind interactions during lunch.
“People's privacy, dignity and independence was fully respected and promoted by staff.” from the report
Improved leadership
The manager and provider had strengthened audits and checks. Inspectors found that identified improvements were dealt with quickly.
“Significant improvements had been made to the provider's quality assurance system which was used effectively to identify any shortfalls.” from the report
More personal care plans
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, routines and preferences. Staff could access the information electronically.
“Care plans had been reviewed and were presented in a more person-centred way taking into account people's likes, dislikes and preferences to ensure they received the care they wanted.” from the report
Refurbishment was unfinished
minorRefurbishment in the older part of the building was still ongoing. That area was closed and no one was living there during the inspection.
“Extensive refurbishment of the service had taken place and was on-going in the older part of the building.” from the report
- 01What are the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, since these areas were not assessed in this inspection?
- 02Has the refurbishment in the older part of the building now been completed?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed, and how do you make sure they reflect each person's current routines, preferences and support needs?
- 04How are medicines checked now, and what happens if the electronic medicines record shows an error?
- 05How will families be kept informed about changes to care or infection control arrangements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 September 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 Broomfield Residential Care
8 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 June 2012.
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 Milton Keynes
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. 90 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“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.