CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Broomy Hill Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found improvements in medicines, risk management, staffing, infection control and learning from incidents. One person had not always received medicines at the prescribed time, and staff practice around positioning one person's chair needed further checking.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and updated, staff had the skills needed, and health and social care professionals were contacted promptly when people's health changed. The home worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider and registered manager had improved oversight, checks, incident learning and communication with staff. Relatives, staff and professionals said senior staff were visible and listened to suggestions.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safer medicines and risk management, with some records still needing improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 13 April 2023 and reviewed records, medicines, staffing, training, recruitment, premises and management checks. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, better risk management and suitable staff training. The home also worked well with health and social care professionals and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this focused inspection, so the overall rating used ratings from the previous inspection for questions not covered.
Safer medicines
Medicines were securely stored, disposed of safely and clearly recorded. Staff had to complete training and competency checks before administering medicines.
“People were supported by staff to have the medicines they needed to remain well.” from the report
Staffing and skills
The number of staff was adjusted when people's needs changed. Recruitment checks, training and competency checks had improved.
“There had been improvements in the way the number of staff required to assist people was calculated.” from the report
Health support
Staff worked promptly with health and social care professionals when people became unwell or had complex needs.
“They [staff] don't leave it to the rounds to get help for people if they're poorly, they contact the duty team, this is always done on the same day.” from the report
Listening to families
Relatives, people using the home and staff were invited to share views. Inspectors found that suggestions were listened to and acted on.
“People's views on the quality of the care provided were gathered at residents' meetings and through informal discussion with staff.” from the report
Improved leadership
The provider and senior staff had strengthened checks on care, risks, incidents and the quality of records.
“The registered manager and provider had improved the oversight of the care provided to people and the management of risks.” from the report
Medicine timing
needs fixingInspectors found one instance where a person did not always receive medicines at the prescribed time. The registered manager and senior staff took immediate action.
“We found one instance where a person had not always received their medicines at the time prescribed.” from the report
Care records
minorThe accuracy of records about one person's repositioning and fluid output could be improved. Senior staff said a central recording system and further checks would be introduced.
“We found no evidence of harm to people, however, the accuracy of recording of people's repositioning and fluid output for one person could be further improved.” from the report
Consistent positioning
minorInspectors found that one person's safety could be improved by making sure staff consistently positioned their chair correctly. Further checks on staff practice were planned.
“The registered manager and senior staff confirmed they would introduce further checks on staff practice.” from the report
- 01How do you check that medicines are given at the prescribed time, and what changed after the timing error found at this inspection?
- 02How will you make sure repositioning and fluid output records are complete and accurate?
- 03What checks are now in place to make sure staff position the person's chair safely and consistently?
- 04What are the current ratings and findings for Caring and Responsive, which were not assessed during this focused inspection?
- 05How do you involve relatives when a person's care needs or risks change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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, February 2022
Broomy Hill Nursing Home was rated Requires Improvement, with unsafe care risks and inadequate leadership and oversight.
Inspectors visited on 13 and 14 September 2021. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They observed care, spoke with staff, and checked care, medicine, safety, staffing and management records.
They found repeated problems with medicines, risk management, hydration, nutrition, staff training and fire safety. Some people experienced delays with medicines or support. Records did not always show that risks had been followed up or that lessons had been learned when things went wrong.
Safe and Effective were rated Requires Improvement. Well-led was rated Inadequate because the provider's checks had not found or fixed important problems, including problems identified at the previous inspection. The home had been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and remained so after this inspection.
Safeguarding awareness
Staff understood signs that might indicate abuse and said concerns would be escalated to protect people.
“People were supported by staff who understood what signs to look for which may indicate abuse may have occurred.” from the report
Respecting everyday choices
Staff listened to people's choices about where they spent their time and what they wanted to do.
“Staff listened to people's decisions about where they wanted to spend their time and what they wanted to do.” from the report
Infection control measures
Inspectors were assured about several infection control arrangements, including visitors, protective equipment, testing and social distancing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines and safety risks
seriousMedicines were not always given at the prescribed time. There were also no daily records showing that pain medicine patches remained in place.
“Systems and practices did not consistently support people to have their medicines at the times prescribed.” from the report
Skin and choking risks
seriousCare plans and staff information did not consistently explain how to manage skin problems or thickened drinks. One person's repositioning intervals were much longer than planned.
“Some people were prescribed thickener, to reduce the risk of choking. Information senior staff had provided to staff on people's individual thickener needs was not consistent.” from the report
Hydration and nutrition
needs fixingFluid targets were not always set or achieved, and staff did not consistently encourage people to eat and drink or offer alternatives.
“The introduction of a robust system for monitoring peoples nutritional and hydration needs was required to ensure people consistently achieved good health outcomes.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's quality systems did not identify or address important problems. Staff roles were not always clear, and the electronic monitoring system did not give managers a full view of people's needs and risks.
“The provider had failed to ensure there was adequate oversight of the care provided at the home.” from the report
Staff training and competency
seriousSome staff had not received training relevant to people's conditions or equipment. Medicine competency assessments were incomplete or recorded as passed when further training was needed.
“The provider and manager could not be assured staff had the skills to manage people's medicines safely.” from the report
Fire and premises work
needs fixingRefurbishment was incomplete, and inspectors found concerns about fire doors, combustible materials and inconsistent evacuation information.
“Key areas of the premises required the completion of refurbishment, to ensure the likelihood of the spread of infection was reduced and to ensure effective fire management practice.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that medicines, including pain patches, are given and monitored exactly as prescribed?
- 02How do you identify and monitor people's risks relating to skin health, choking, hydration and nutrition?
- 03What evidence can you show that staff have completed and passed practical medicine competency checks?
- 04How are the registration conditions being met, and how often are the provider's quality checks reviewed?
- 05What work has been completed on fire safety, refurbishment and evacuation information?
This was a focused and targeted inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection control and the requirements linked to Regulations 12 and 17; Caring and Responsive were not assessed and the other ratings used in the overall rating carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 2022 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 Broomy Hill Nursing Home
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.