Bracebridge Court

“People were safe and supported by sufficient staffing levels which helped them receive the care and support when they needed it. Safe recruitment checks made sure staff were suitable and safe to care for people. The provider assessed people’s needs before they moved into the home to make sure they could meet people’s needs. The provider’s systems recorded personalised information about risks to people’s health, their medication and wishes for future care, and this was shared with other healthcare professionals if they were admitted to hospital. The home environment was maintained and staff followed infection control measures to minimise the risk of cross infection. Whilst we saw infection control measures were in place, we saw some food and drinks in communal areas and people’s rooms had not been labelled with the date of opening in accordance with good food hygiene practices.”

“People received their medicines from trained staff. We were confident people received their medicines; however, in some cases, we could not be confident they were administered safely. Before we concluded our visit, the provider took steps to improve the handling and administration of people’s medicines. This related to some medicines given via a skin patch and some medicines that required storage at certain temperatures to maintain their efficacy.”

“Staff supported people to engage in activities and to pursue their hobbies and interests. During our visit, people were doing arts and crafts, while other people watched television in communal areas or in their own room.”

“People’s mental capacity and ability to consent was taken into account, and people and their representatives were involved in how their care and support was tailored to them. Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) applications were appropriately submitted.”

“Staff were valued; they were encouraged to speak up and give feedback. Staff worked well with other professionals to ensure people's needs were met. The provider had systems of quality assurance that helped them check, monitor and improve the service they provided which included listening to people’s feedback. There was a programme of audits and checks that were completed at set intervals; however, some of those checks had not identified the improvements we found, for example with medicines. The registered operations director agreed to review their audits to ensure they identified and drove improvements.”