CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at New Bradley Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2019
New Bradley Hall was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some care records were inconsistent.
Inspectors visited on 18 and 19 September 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and worked with health professionals when needed.
Inspectors found some gaps and inaccuracies in care plans and risk assessments. Training refreshers were still being completed. The management team knew about these issues and was auditing and updating records.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw that staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People received care that was kind and compassionate.” from the report
Safe medicines and clean home
Medicines were stored and given safely by trained staff. The home was visibly clean and had recently received a five-star food hygiene rating.
“The environment was visibly very clean and smelt fresh.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose their food, routines and activities. Inspectors saw people enjoying activities, with support also available for people who preferred to spend time alone.
“There was evidence of people having access to numerous activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff could share their views with managers. The management team listened to feedback and acted on concerns.
“The registered manager and staff were approachable, organised, listened and responded to people and acted on feedback shared with them.” from the report
Care records were not always accurate
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments had gaps, including missing details about equipment and records that did not match the care being provided. The provider was auditing and updating the records.
“There was a variance in the quality of people's care plans and assessments, for example, a person's skin management plan did not reflect the care provided and some recording was inaccurate.” from the report
Some concerns about morning staffing
minorOne person said there was sometimes a shortage of staff, usually in the mornings. Inspectors did not see people waiting for help, and the home was reviewing staffing levels.
“The service here is good to very good, let down sometimes by shortage of staff, usually in the mornings.” from the report
Training refreshers were still needed
minorInspectors found some need for training updates, although the provider had identified this and further training was under way.
“There was some need for training refreshers, but this had been identified and training updates were on going.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan and risk assessments are accurate and kept up to date?
- 02If my relative needs moving equipment, does their care plan name the specific sling and hoist to use?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty in the mornings, and what happens if staffing is short?
- 04Which training refreshers are still outstanding, and when will staff complete them?
- 05How will you check that recorded care, such as skin care, matches the care actually provided?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous inspection had also rated every area Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
New Bradley Hall was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, staffing levels were monitored and medicines were handled safely. Staff were trained and supported, and people had access to healthcare, food, activities and family contact.
The previous inspection in September 2016 found that some parts of safety and leadership needed improvement. This inspection found that the necessary improvements had been made. The overall Good rating means the home met the inspectors' standards at the time of this inspection.
People felt safe
People said they were safe and staff responded when they needed help. Inspectors found that risks, accidents and staffing levels were monitored.
“Risks to people's health and well-being were understood and effectively managed by staff.” from the report
Medicines were better managed
The problems found at the previous inspection had been addressed. The medicines records checked were complete, and staff had their skills checked.
“The MAR we reviewed were fully completed with no gaps or omissions evident.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness, protected their dignity and supported them to make choices about daily life.
“People received care that respected their need for privacy and maintained their dignity.” from the report
Personalised activities and family contact
People were supported to follow their interests, use local facilities and keep in touch with family and friends. Their rooms and activities reflected their preferences.
“People were supported to follow their interests, access the local community and take part in social activities.” from the report
Some medicine guidance was not fully personalised
needs fixingWritten guidance was available for as-required medicines, but it needed more detail for people who could not consistently communicate their needs.
“However guidance for those people who could not consistently make their needs known needed to be more personalised to their individual needs.” from the report
Some staff supervision was overdue
minorThe manager said some formal staff supervision sessions were overdue because there were not enough senior care staff to carry them out.
“The manager told us that some supervision was overdue, as they had a shortage of senior care staff to conduct more formal supervisions with staff.” from the report
- 01How have you made the as-required medicine guidance more personal for people who cannot consistently explain what they need?
- 02Are all staff supervisions now up to date, and how are they monitored?
- 03Has the manager completed registration with the CQC?
- 04What is the current plan for rebuilding the home, and how would building work affect residents?
- 05How will you make sure each new resident's care plan reflects their interests, history, cultural needs and preferred activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and it checked whether improvements identified at the September 2016 inspection had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 2017 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 New Bradley Hall
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 February 2015.
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 Dudley
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 £1,230 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 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.”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.