CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Browfield Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines safely, risks were assessed and there were enough staff. A rear door was not secure during the visit, but a keypad was fitted the next day.
- Effective?
- Good
- Training, induction and supervision had improved. Care plans were reviewed, people's health needs were supported and staff worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit, so its previous rating carried over.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit, so its previous rating carried over.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management roles were clearer and quality checks were more thorough. People and staff said the home had improved and that staff felt more supported.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found clear improvements in medicines, staffing, care planning and management, although a rear door was initially unsafe.
This was an announced focused inspection. The inspector visited on 15 March 2022 and reviewed care records, medicines records, quality checks and policies. They spoke with four people, five staff, two relatives and a health professional.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe, Effective and Well-led also rated Good. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs, training had improved and care plans gave staff useful information.
The building was being refurbished. Communal areas and most bedrooms had been modernised, and a new kitchen had been fitted. The home was clean and comfortable, and infection control procedures were in place.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach. Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this visit, so those ratings carried over from the previous inspection.
Safer medicines
Medicines were being given as prescribed. Stock checks and guidance for medicines given when needed were in place.
“Regular stock counts were completed by staff; in the event of any errors these would be quickly identified and rectified.” from the report
Improved staff support
Training, induction and supervision had improved since the previous inspection. Staff were described as knowledgeable about their roles.
“Training provision had much improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Better environment
A substantial refurbishment was under way. Most bedrooms and communal areas had been modernised and a new kitchen had been fitted.
“A large fully fitted kitchen had been installed, a space to the rear of the home had been paved and most bedrooms had been modernised.” from the report
Stronger management
Management roles were clearer and quality checks were more thorough. The home had improved its oversight of care and other services.
“Quality assurance systems in place were more thorough. Oversight and management of all aspects of the service had improved.” from the report
Support for independence
Staff supported people to make choices, develop their strengths and access the community. A staff member was responsible for developing activities and daily living opportunities.
“The management team were keen to develop peoples' strengths and promote independence.” from the report
Rear door security
seriousA rear door was not secure and led to stairs, creating a risk for some people. The manager was told and a keypad was fitted the following day.
“A door at the rear of the home was not secure and led to a number of stairs.” from the report
Broken dining chair
minorInspectors found a broken dining room chair during the visit. It was replaced with more robust chairs after the inspection.
“We noted a broken dining room chair during the inspection.” from the report
- 01Has the keypad on the rear door remained in place and been included in regular safety checks?
- 02Which parts of the refurbishment, including the bathrooms and office spaces, are still to be completed?
- 03What additional training will staff receive about people's health needs and behaviours?
- 04What activities and daily living opportunities are currently available to help people build independence and access the community?
- 05How are medicines checked when people spend time away from the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 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.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Requires Improvement overall; inspectors rated safety Inadequate and found serious weaknesses in medicines, staffing, recruitment and management.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection over 21, 23 and 28 June 2021. One inspector spoke with five people and four staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files, rotas and management records.
The home was caring and responsive. People said they were happy and settled. Care plans described people's needs and preferences, and staff supported people to make choices. Health professionals were involved when people's needs changed.
However, inspectors found people were at risk because medicines were not managed and recorded safely. Recruitment checks were incomplete, agreed one-to-one support was not always provided, and staff had not received proper induction or supervision. Incidents that should have been reported to CQC had not always been reported.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe was Inadequate, while Effective and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were Good. The new provider had improved the building, but the inspection found that important safety and management improvements were still needed.
Kind and respectful care
People said they were happy and settled. Staff knew people well and supported them with dignity, choice and independence.
“People told us they were happy and settled and the atmosphere was relaxed and friendly.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans contained information about people's individual needs and preferences. People were involved in deciding how they wanted to be supported.
“Individual care and support plans were in place. These provided comprehensive information about people's needs, wishes and preferences.” from the report
Health and social care support
The home worked with health and social care professionals when people's needs changed, including for end of life care.
“People had access to relevant health care professionals, so their health and well-being was maintained, and they received any treatment they needed.” from the report
Building improvements
The new provider had improved several parts of the building, including the roof, boiler, laundry equipment and some bedrooms. Further refurbishment was planned.
“During this inspection we found lots of improvements had been made.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were satisfied with the home's infection prevention arrangements, including hygiene, protective equipment, testing and visiting arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines were not managed safely
seriousControlled drug balances were inaccurate, some administration records lacked the required signatures, and creams were not always stored or dated correctly. Some guidance for 'when required' medicines was missing or not detailed enough.
“We found prescribed creams were not stored correctly, dated on opening or always stored at the correct temperature.” from the report
Recruitment checks were incomplete
seriousSome staff files had gaps in employment histories and missing references. DBS checks had not been sought, and two recent staff files could not be found.
“Shortfalls included gaps in employment, written references not in place and DBS checks not sought.” from the report
Staffing did not always meet agreed support
seriousAlthough rotas showed enough staff were available, agreed one-to-one support hours for some people were not being provided.
“Additional one to one support hours agreed for some people were not being provided.” from the report
Staff induction and supervision
seriousNew staff had not completed a comprehensive induction and staff had not received individual supervision to review their work and support their development.
“New staff had not completed a comprehensive induction on commencing their employment, so they understood their role and responsibilities.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe registered manager was not responsible for the home's day-to-day management. Audits had not identified the problems found by inspectors, and some policies were out of date.
“Audit systems were not sufficiently robust and had not identified the shortfalls found during this inspection, including shortfalls with recruitment and medication.” from the report
Incidents were not always reported
seriousTwo incidents involving people had not been reported to CQC and the local authority as required. Managers took action after the concerns were raised.
“The previous manager had failed to report these to CQC and the local authority.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make medicines safe, including storage, controlled drug balances, signatures and guidance for 'when required' medicines?
- 02Have all staff recruitment files now been checked for references, employment gaps and DBS checks?
- 03How are you making sure each person's agreed one-to-one support hours are provided?
- 04Have all staff completed a full induction, and how often do they receive supervision?
- 05Who is now responsible for the home's day-to-day management, and how are audits being used to find and fix problems?
This was the new provider's first comprehensive inspection, covering all five key questions; the focused inspection in December 2020 was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 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.
Every inspection of Browfield Residential Home
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2017Goodstayed GoodResponsive: Good
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 November 2020.
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 Bury
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. 94 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.