CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Brendans Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements, including protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 December 2020. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
The inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, following shielding and social distancing rules, and managing admissions safely.
They also found extra checks on infection control, plans for responding to a COVID-19 outbreak, and increased staffing to support social contact for people in isolation.
The home was closed to visitors during the inspection. Written plans were in place for visits to restart, including booking, protective equipment and cleaning between visits. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control checks
The provider had added quality checks to make sure staff followed infection prevention and control practices.
“The provider had implemented additional quality checks to ensure staff were following the correct Infection control and prevention practices in the home.” from the report
Outbreak planning
Policies, procedures and contingency plans were in place to support a prompt response to a COVID-19 outbreak.
“The provider had policies, procedures and contingency plans in place to support the staff in taking prompt actions should there be a COVID-19 outbreak in the service.” from the report
Support during isolation
Staffing levels had been increased to provide social stimulation for people who were isolating.
“The provider told us they had increased staffing levels to support provision of social stimulation where people were in isolation.” from the report
Planned visitor safety
Written guidance covered visitor bookings, protective equipment and cleaning of the visiting area when visits restarted.
“This included a booking system for visitors, provision of Personal Protective Equipment and a clean of the visiting area at the end of each visit.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the infection prevention and control checks working now?
- 02What arrangements are currently in place for visitors, including booking, protective equipment and cleaning?
- 03How would you respond if there was a COVID-19 outbreak in the home?
- 04How do you support residents with social contact if they need to isolate?
- 05How are people admitted safely and tested when they move into the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 2020 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 2020
St Brendans Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some records and specialist food knowledge needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with four people, a relative, staff, the manager, the provider and a visiting district nurse. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment checks and safety records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People appeared relaxed and comfortable. Inspectors found a friendly atmosphere, kind staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines processes and enough staff to meet people's needs.
There were some areas to improve. One chef's knowledge about specialist diets for people at risk of choking needed improvement. Records did not always show how people had been involved in care reviews or how their personal interests had been explored. The manager said these issues would be addressed.
People felt safe
Risk assessments clearly described people's risks and told staff how to respond. Safety checks were completed for the building and equipment.
“People had risk assessments in place. These records clearly highlighted to staff what risks people faced.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were attentive and supported people's dignity, privacy and independence. They spent time with people who needed extra social contact.
“We saw staff and people interacting in a friendly and kind way.” from the report
Good health support
The home monitored people's health and acted quickly when they became unwell. Staff made referrals to other health professionals when needed.
“When people had shown signs of not being well, appropriate action had been taken to get them the health care they needed.” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager was closely involved in the home and responded positively to suggestions. Inspectors found a friendly and inclusive culture.
“There was a positive culture at the home. Staff were open, friendly, and knew about people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Specialist food knowledge
needs fixingOne chef's knowledge about specialist diets for people at risk of choking needed improvement. The manager had started to address this.
“Although, we found one of the chef's knowledge in this area needed improving.” from the report
Care review records
needs fixingRecords did not always show that people had been consulted during care reviews. They also did not always show that particular interests had been explored.
“People's records of their reviews of their care did not always show how they had been consulted with.” from the report
End of life plans
minorEnd of life plans were in place, but the manager said they needed revising to include more detail about people's wishes and wants.
“The registered manager told us they were going to start revising these plans to build upon their wishes and wants at this time.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure chefs understand each person's specialist diet and choking risks?
- 02How will you record my relative's views and involvement in care reviews?
- 03How do you find out and record a resident's personal interests and make sure these are supported?
- 04How often are end of life plans reviewed, and how are people's wishes and wants added?
- 05What changes have been made since the inspection to improve the areas identified by inspectors?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2020 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 Brendans Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at St Brendans Residential Home →
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Brendans Residential Home →
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Luton
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. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.