CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bryden House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, visiting, admissions, hygiene and the management of possible outbreaks. The home also had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, visiting arrangements and measures to manage staffing pressures.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures were affecting the home. The visit was announced one day in advance.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, supported testing, managed admissions, maintained hygiene and had an up-to-date infection control policy. Visitors needed a negative lateral flow test before entering, and people were supported to see family safely.
The home had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staff pressures. Senior care staff had completed extra training to give the home more flexibility with staffing. This visit did not give an overall quality rating. Safe was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Safe family visits
The home had a clear process for visits. Visitors had to provide a negative lateral flow test before entering.
“Visitors were required to provide a negative lateral flow test before entering the home to help keep them and those they were visiting safe.” from the report
Flexible staffing skills
Senior care staff had completed extra training to become care practitioners. Inspectors were told this gave the home more flexibility to staff safely and meet people's needs.
“Senior care staff had completed a programme to upskill them to care practitioners.” from the report
Infection control training
Systems were in place to keep staff training and guidance up to date, supporting safe infection control practices.
“Systems were in place to ensure staff received up to date guidance and training to ensure those staff continued to meet government guidelines for safe infection control practices to reduce the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing any COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 02What are the current rules for family visits, including testing requirements?
- 03How do you make sure staff remain up to date with infection prevention and control guidance?
- 04How do you support people to see family and friends while maintaining their safety?
- 05What were the ratings or findings for care areas not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Bryden House was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but leadership and quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 November 2018. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with nine people, four relatives and five staff. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff records and management documents.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and responsiveness. People said they felt safe, were treated kindly and had their choices and routines respected. Staff understood people's needs, and there were enough staff on duty.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Inspectors found that checks had not always identified incomplete medicine records, outdated care guidance or gaps in monitoring people's mealtime experience. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew the help each person needed to reduce risks. Staffing levels were considered sufficient.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described positive relationships with staff. Inspectors found that staff respected privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“People enjoyed positive and caring relationships with the staff team and were treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Staff understood people's needs
Staff received training and regular support. They knew people's routines and responded to changes or healthcare needs.
“People we spoke with were happy staff understood their care needs well and could provide the care they wanted and needed.” from the report
Support with personal choices
People were involved in decisions about their care and could choose how they spent their time. Their routines and interests were supported.
“People's preferences and routines were known and supported.” from the report
End of life support
The home recorded people's end of life wishes and worked with a local hospice for advice and planning.
“The staff and the registered manager demonstrated a compassionate approach to providing people with end of life care and meeting people's wishes.” from the report
Medicine timing records
needs fixingRecords did not always show the time that time-specific medicines had been given. Inspectors said this could mean the required gaps between doses were not followed.
“The records failed to accurately show the time administered and may mean those time frames are not followed.” from the report
Outdated care guidance
needs fixingSome care records did not include the latest advice from health professionals. Inspectors gave oral care as an example.
“Care plans did not always show the most recent guidance and advice that had been given by community health professionals.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingManagement checks had not identified problems with medicine records and care plans. This contributed to the Requires Improvement rating for being well-led.
“Service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.” from the report
Mealtime experience
minorInspectors identified small practical barriers during meals. People eating in the lounge did not have access to some items, and a serving trolley blocked the dining room doorway.
“More could be offered to further support people, for example, when eating in the lounge people did not have access to condiments or serviettes.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and check the times that time-specific medicines are given?
- 02How do you make sure new advice from health professionals is added promptly to care plans?
- 03What has changed in your checks of care plans, medicines and people's mealtime experience?
- 04How have you improved access to condiments and serviettes, and stopped the serving trolley blocking the dining room doorway?
- 05How do you make sure oral care plans give staff clear and up-to-date instructions?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the personal and nursing care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 2019 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 Bryden House
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 November 2014.
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 Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“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.