Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at St Brannocks

Goodpublished 26 September 2025, 12 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Cleanliness and food hygiene

    needs fixing

    Some 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

    serious

    Staff 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

    serious

    One 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

    serious

    The 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 fixing

    Some 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done since the inspection to improve cleanliness, bathroom maintenance and food hygiene?
  2. 02How are individual evacuation plans now recorded for people who may need help to leave the building?
  3. 03How will you make sure each person's oral healthcare support is provided every day and recorded?
  4. 04How often does the provider now visit the home, and what audits are used to check safety, medicines, infection control and care plans?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of St Brannocks

2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. March 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at St Brannocks →

  2. August 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.

See live-in carers near NorfolkProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.