CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Brannocks
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care, but weaknesses in safety, personalised support and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 February 2019. One inspector and one inspection manager spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records and records about running the home.
People generally said they felt safe and well looked after. Staff were kind, trained and supported people's independence. People had suitable food and drink, and could access healthcare when needed.
Inspectors found some important shortfalls. Parts of the home were not clean or well maintained, some safety checks were incomplete, and one person did not always receive the oral care supervision set out in their care plan. Care plans were not always reviewed and the provider's checks were not strong enough.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective and Caring were rated Good. This was a deterioration from the previous Good rating published in 2016.
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people kindly, built positive relationships and adapted how they communicated. Inspectors saw that people's privacy and dignity were respected.
“Staff continued to support people in a kind and caring manner.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to make their own meals, manage their own medicines where appropriate and go out independently.
“Staff supported people to remain as independent as possible.” from the report
Skilled staff
Inspectors found staff competent and knowledgeable. Training covered areas such as mental capacity, safeguarding and supporting people with challenging behaviour.
“Staff continued to be competent, knowledgeable and skilled in their roles.” from the report
Access to healthcare
Staff supported people to see healthcare professionals and communicated with social workers and other professionals when needed.
“Staff supported people to access healthcare when needed.” from the report
Cleanliness and food hygiene
needs fixingSome areas were dusty, bathrooms had limescale and not all bins had bags. Opened food was not always sealed in the fridge and some food was out of date.
“Improvements were required to food hygiene practice and the cleanliness of the kitchen.” from the report
Incomplete safety arrangements
seriousStaff were not fully following the legionella checks. There were no individual evacuation plans and no risk assessments for potentially hazardous substances kept by people.
“There were not specific evacuation plans for individual people's needs.” from the report
Missed oral care support
seriousOne person did not always receive the supervision needed for their oral healthcare. The care plan was not detailed enough and did not always ensure their oral health was maintained.
“The person did not always receive supervision, and the care plan in this area was not detailed enough.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider had visited only once in the previous year and did not identify some problems. Audits and recorded checks were missing in several important areas.
“There were not robust governance systems such as audits in place for infection control, health and safety, medicines administration and competency checking.” from the report
Care plans not always reviewed
needs fixingSome care plans had not been reviewed regularly, so staff might not have had the most up-to-date information about people's needs.
“They had not all been regularly reviewed, which is important for the service to ensure up to date information is given to staff.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to improve cleanliness, bathroom maintenance and food hygiene?
- 02How are individual evacuation plans now recorded for people who may need help to leave the building?
- 03How will you make sure each person's oral healthcare support is provided every day and recorded?
- 04How often does the provider now visit the home, and what audits are used to check safety, medicines, infection control and care plans?
- 05How often are care plans reviewed, and how are changes in people's needs shared with all staff?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, covering the premises, care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 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 St Brannocks
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2011.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.