• Care Home
  • Care home

Bramcote Hills Care Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Sandringham Drive, Bramcote, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG9 3EJ (0115) 922 1414

Provided and run by:
Savace Limited

Important:

We issued an urgent notice of decision on 5 July 2024 to impose conditions on Savance Limited registration for failing to protect people from the risk of harm. On 2 August 2024 we served two warning notices on Savance Limited for failing to meet the regulation related to person centred care, dignity and respect, need to consent, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing at Bramcote Hills Care Home. 

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment 3 July 2024 to 15 July 2024. Bramcote Hills Care Home is a ‘care home’ providing nursing and personal care to older people and people living with dementia. At the time of the assessment, the service was supporting 49 people with their personal care needs. Bramcote Hills was last rated Good (published 21 November 2022). The report was published following CQC’s old inspection approach using key lines of enquiry (KLOEs), prompts and rating characteristics. This assessment has been completed following the Care Quality Commission (CQC) new approach to assessment; Single Assessment Framework (SAF). We assessed 24 quality statements from the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the key question ratings from the last inspection. The assessment of these quality statements indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, therefore our overall rating changes to inadequate. We found six breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care, dignity and respect, need for consent, safe care and treatment, staffing and governance. We found evidence the service did not provide adequate staffing levels to ensure care was carried out in a safe and effective way. People were not always protected from neglect and harm or provided with person centred care. The provider did not have clear processes and systems in place to have robust oversight of the service to identify risks or concerns meaning necessary improvements could not be made to the care people received. This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

6 October 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Bramcote Hills is a Care Home providing a regulated activity for personal and nursing care to up to 63 people. The service provides support to older people and those with dementia or who require nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 39 people using the service. The home was purpose built, split over five floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Risks were assessed and managed, improvements had been seen since our last inspection, and records were more concise. Staffing levels were sufficient with the use of agency and bank staff to cover shortfalls. Medicines were administered in a safe way by competent staff. The service was following infection control guidance to ensure control measures were in place. People told us they felt safe living at the service and with staff who care for them.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People had enough to eat and drink to ensure they had good nutrition and were well hydrated. Staff received training that reflected their role and recruitment safety checks were completed to make sure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

People received consistent effective care. They had access to other healthcare professionals when needed.

Care plans contained detailed information to ensure staff could meet people’s needs. People had received positive outcomes that improved their wellbeing. Communication needs were considered to help people communicate effectively. People were supported to maintain relationships with family, friends and others at the service.

Regular audits had been completed to improve the quality of the service. We received positive feedback in regard to the managers and how the service had improved. The service planned and promoted person-centred care. They fulfilled their legal obligations to report incidents of concern and worked well with other professionals.

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 06 December 2019) and there were breaches of regulation.

Why we inspected

We carried out an unannounced focused inspection of this service on 24 September 2019. Breaches of legal requirements were found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 Good governance.

We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led which contain those requirements.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from Requires Improvement to Good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bramcote Hills Care home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

11 February 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Bramcote Hills Care Home is a purpose-built residential care home providing accommodation and personal and/or nursing care for up to 63 people. At the time of this inspection 36 people were living at the home and receiving support from staff.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The home was currently closed due to an outbreak of COVID-19. However, the provider ensured people still had access to an ‘essential care giver’. This is a named person who can still visit during a COVID-19 outbreak. This helped to reduce the risk of loneliness and improved people’s mental health and wellbeing. Alternative methods of seeing friends and family were also in place.

The provider ensured people visiting the home provided proof of a negative Lateral Flow Test result before being permitted access to the home.Visitors were provided with the required Protective Personal Equipment (PPE) for their visit and were confined to agreed parts of the home, reducing the risk of the spread of infection.

Professionals and other visitors to the home were required to provide proof of vaccination status, wear the required PPE and to adhere to the provider’s various infection control, COVID-19 and visitation policies.

People were supported to use and access their environment in a safe way. Social distancing was encouraged wherever possible. We observed staff supporting people with their meals whilst wearing the appropriate PPE. Efforts had been made to support people living with dementia to maintain social distancing. Rooms were well ventilated.

Safe isolation procedures were in place to protect others from the risk of infection. Where required barrier nursing took place and there were strict PPE criteria for staff to follow when providing personal care for people. Appropriate procedures were also in place to dispose of used PPE safely. We observed staff doing so.

Safe admission and re-admissions protocols were in place. People were required to provide negative LFT results upon entry. They were then required to isolate until further negative test results had been confirmed.

The provider showed us the high levels of PPE stock they held at the home. Staff had received training on how to ‘Don and Doff’ (put on and take off) their PPE to reduce the risk of cross-contamination. Staff helped support people to use PPE when needed.

A regular testing programme was in place. This testing was carried out in accordance with government guidelines. People were supported to receive their vaccinations and booster. Staff were all fully vaccinated. The layout of the premises ensured the risk of the spread of COVID-19 was reduced.

There were enough staff to support people safely and to cover any staff holidays, sickness and COVID-19 isolation. There had been some pressures on staff numbers. When needed in urgent situations, agency staff have been used. Occasionally, some non-care staff have carried out care staff duties where there had been a sudden shortage. We were assured by the provider that these staff were fully trained care staff.

The provider considered staff member’s wellbeing. A variety of initiatives were in place to support staff whose mental health and wellbeing may have been affected by the pandemic.

The provider had assessed the impact of potential ‘winter pressures’ and acted accordingly. Regular COVID-19, outbreak and other related audits were carried out to help identify any areas of concern. Action plans were in place and reviewed.

24 September 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Bramcote Hills Care Home is a care home providing personal and nursing care to 53 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 63 people. The home is purpose built, split over five floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Risks to people’s health and safety were not always identified, thoroughly assessed or updated to reflect changes to people’s needs. Recruitment processes were safe and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The management of people’s medicines was safe. The premises and equipment were predominantly clean.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were happy with the meals, although we found records relating to people’s food and fluid intake needed to be improved. Staff were supported but not all training was up to date.

Staff were caring and kind. People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff respected people’s right to privacy and personal information was stored confidentially.

Care records were individualised, but they were not always reflective of people’s current needs, some documents did not include people’s names and were not always dated. Information regarding people’s communication needs was limited. Improvements were needed to the quality of care records for people who were in the final stages of their lives. There was a range of activities provided for people to participate in. There was a system in place for people to complain in the event they were dissatisfied with the service.

Although regular audits were completed, they were not sufficiently robust as they had failed to identify or address the shortfalls we have identified throughout this report. The management team were professional throughout the inspection, taking on board our feedback, they understood their professional responsibilities. People were positive about the management team, staff felt supported.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 28 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance at this inspection.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

1 March 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 1 and 2 March 2017 and was unannounced.

Accommodation for up to 63 people is provided in the service. The service is designed to meet the needs of older people living with or without dementia. There were 53 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

A registered manager was in post and was available throughout the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff knew how to keep people safe and understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks were managed so that people were protected from avoidable harm and not unnecessarily restricted.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices. Medicines were safely managed.

Staff received appropriate induction, training and supervision. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received sufficient to eat and drink, though the mealtime experience in one dining area and the completion of fluid chart documentation could be improved. External professionals were involved in people’s care as appropriate.

Staff were kind and knew people well. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care, though documented evidence of this could be improved. Advocacy information was made available to people.

People received care that respected their privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care records contained information to support staff to meet people’s individual needs, though activities could be further improved.

A complaints process was in place and staff knew how to respond to complaints.

People and their relatives were involved or had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. Staff told us they would be confident in raising any concerns with the management team and that appropriate action would be taken.

The provider was meeting their regulatory responsibilities. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

30 and 31 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 30 and 31 July 2015 and was unannounced.

Accommodation for up to 58 people is provided in the home over five floors. The service is designed to meet the needs of older people and provides nursing care.

At the previous inspection on 5 and 6 March 2015, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the areas of safe care and treatment, safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment, person-centered care and good governance. We received an action plan in which the provider told us the actions they had taken to meet the relevant legal requirements. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in all of these areas, though further work was still required in the area of safe care and treatment.

There is a registered manager and she was available during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe in the home and staff knew how to identify potential signs of abuse. Systems were in place for staff to identify and manage risks and respond to accidents and incidents. The premises were managed to keep people safe. Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and they were recruited through safe recruitment practices. Medicines were safely managed.

People’s rights were not fully protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Documentation was not always fully completed to show that all people had received full support to minimise the risk of skin damage. Staff received appropriate induction, training and supervision. People received sufficient to eat and drink. External professionals were involved in people’s care as appropriate.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care.

People’s needs were promptly responded to. Care records provided sufficient information for staff to provide personalised care. Activities were available in the home. A complaints process was in place and complaints were handled appropriately.

People and their relatives were involved or had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. Staff told us they would be confident raising any concerns with the management and that the registered manager would take action. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

5 and 6 March 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 5 and 6 March 2015 and was unannounced.

Accommodation for up to 58 people is provided in the home over five floors. The service is designed to meet the needs of older people and provides nursing care.

At the previous inspection on 16 May 2014, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the areas of consent to care and treatment, care and welfare of people who use services and management of medicines. We received an action plan in which the provider told us the actions they had taken to meet the relevant legal requirements. At this inspection we found that concerns remained in all of these areas.

There was not a registered manager in place. The previous registered manager’s registration had been cancelled in August 2014. The current manager had been in place for 14 months but was not available during the inspection. An application to register the current manager had been received at the time of the inspection and the current manager is now registered.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe in the home; however, processes were not always followed to protect people from the risk of abuse. Systems were in place for staff to identify and manage risks; however these were not always followed. Staffing levels met the needs of people who used the service and staff were recruited safely. Staff did not follow safe medicines management.

People were supported at mealtimes; however, systems to protect people from the risk of insufficient food and drink were not always followed. The home involved external professionals in people’s care as appropriate, however, actions were not always taken to ensure people were fully supported to maintain good health.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always fully adhered to. Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal but not all staff had attended all relevant training. Limited adaptations had been made to the premises to support people living with dementia.

Most people felt that staff were kind and caring. However, staff did not always respect people’s privacy as records were not kept securely. Relatives were involved in making decisions about their family member’s care and the support they received; however, people’s involvement in their own care planning was limited.

People’s needs were not always promptly responded to. There were not enough activities available and people were not supported to follow their own interests or hobbies. Care records did not always contain sufficient information to provide personalised care. Complaints were handled appropriately by the home.

People and their relatives could raise issues at meetings or by completing questionnaires but actions to address concerns were not clearly documented. A manager was in post but an application to register with the CQC had not been promptly made. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided; however, these were not always effective. The provider had not identified the concerns that we found during this inspection.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

16 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Prior to our visit we reviewed all the information we had received from the provider. During the visit we spoke with six people who used the service and two relatives and asked them for their views. We also spoke with two care workers, a team leader, a nurse, the recently appointed home manager and the area manager. The named registered manager had recently left the service, but the provider had not informed us of this. The provider had recruited a new manager who started work three weeks prior to our visit and they told us they would be applying to become the registered manager within the next month.

We looked at some of the records held in the service including the care files for five people. We observed the support people who used the service received from staff and carried out a brief tour of the building.

We carried out this inspection to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found people's care and support was not planned and delivered in a way that ensured their safety and welfare. Systems in place to ensure people received their medication safely were not always followed and medicines were not always safely administered.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. The manager informed us after the inspection they had made one application and was waiting for the result of this and the required policies and procedures were in place for this. The manager said relevant staff will be trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

We found the provider had effective systems to involve people in planning their care, and obtaining people's consent for this to be provided. A person who used the service told us, 'We talk about my care, they keep me happy.'

We found staff were not always effective at meeting the care and welfare needs of all the people who used the service. A relative told us they had some concerns about the night time care of their relation. The documentation completed did not make this clear so staff could not effectively answer the relative's concerns.

The number of staff employed and how they were deployed had been identified as reasons why staffing arrangements in the home were not effective and action was being taken to resolve this.

Is the service caring?

We found the care and welfare needs of people who used the service were met in a sensitive and caring manner. People who used the service told us staff made them feel safe and well cared for. A person who used the service told us, 'The care here is very good, they don't forget you. The food is very nice too.'

Is the service responsive?

We found care workers responded appropriately when people had the capacity to make decisions about their care and welfare. We saw people who used the service were asked for their views by staff over every day matters.

We found staff responded appropriately to the care and welfare needs of people who used the service. A person told us, 'Staff make sure I am alright, I feel safe here. They come and move me to stop me getting sore.'

Is the service well-led?

We found the provider did not protect the rights of people who did not have the capacity to consent as staff did not know how to complete an assessment to determine if a person had the capacity to make a decision.

The manager told us they were putting management systems, including quality assurance systems into place and these would be used to make improvements to the service. A person who used the service told us the new manager, 'Knows what she is doing, she gets things done.' A relative said, 'I have faith in her, she know what to do.'

11 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. One person told us, 'Staff have got to know me and what I like. They ask me what I want and give me choices.'

We saw that people's individual needs and risks had been assessed and had been reviewed regularly since our last inspection. During our inspection we observed that staff interacted well with people who used the service.

We noted that nutrition care plans were in place with completed risk assessments which had been updated on a regular basis. We also noted that people's food and fluid intake charts had been completed regularly.

We saw policies were in place in relation to the prevention and control of infection. We saw improvements had been made by the service regarding the prevention, control and management of infection.

During our inspection we observed that maintenance work had been completed in line with the provider's action plan. One staff member told us, 'I use the maintenance book and jobs are dealt with as quickly as possible.'

We saw that regular supervision meetings and appraisals were held between the staff and the manager. We noted that the staff training matrix had not been fully updated at the time of our inspection.

We found that people's care plans were stored and secured appropriately. We saw that records were completed appropriately and information in people's care plans was updated regularly.

18 June 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found at times that some staff were task centred in their approach with people and some staff used a patronising tone of voice and language when speaking with some people who used the service.

The expert by experience (ex by Ex) talked with three people using the service and one visitor. All of them were full of praise for the establishment. One person said, 'You can get up and go to bed when you want'. There is a good response to the bell if it's rung in the night.' Another person said, the staff were 'very good'.

We found there had been some improvement in respect of the organisation of the care files and more personalised information was available. However further improvement was still required to ensure all the necessary information was available for staff to follow. Improvement was also needed to ensure some staff supported people in line with their plan of care.

The Ex by Ex spoke with people in respect of the food on offer. One person told them the food was good and they said, 'I can choose what I have'. Another person told them there was no time limit for breakfast and they said, 'Every choice is on offer for breakfast.'

One person also told them that sandwiches and 'small bits' were served at teatime but then there was nothing else until breakfast.

We found staff had not always followed the instructions within plans of care for those people assessed as nutritionally being at risk.

One person told the Ex by EX they had experienced people walking into their room at times, and this made them feel unsafe. They also told them that the staff had listened to this and responded to their concerns and they now felt safe.

We found the home was mostly clean and tidy in all areas. However minor improvements were still needed to ensure people were cared for and supported in a clean environment at all times.

The provider had changed some communal areas and added additional bedrooms. An additional lounge area had been created to ensure there was still communal space for people to use. One person told us there have been improvements in respect of the environment and they particularly enjoyed sitting in the sun room. We found that minor improvements were still needed in respect of the environment; however the provider was acting upon these.

The people using the service who we spoke with did not raise any concerns about the competency of staff.

We saw staff had attended additional training sessions and some staff had undertaken a supervision. However improvement in this area was still needed.

We found improvements had been made in respect of the storage and completion of records but the provider was not fully compliant with this outcome area in that people's personal records were not always accurate and fit for purpose.

7 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Since our previous inspection of Bramcote Hills Care Home there has been a change of ownership of the registered provider, Savace Limited t/a Bramcote Hills Care Home.

We spoke with seven people who were using the service and three visitors who told us about the improvements they had noticed in the quality of services provided in the weeks leading up to this inspection. We were told, They take good care of me," and "there's been a vast improvement."

We looked at care plans and other records, spoke with staff and observed care practice. Some of the care plans contained good person centred information about people, including their care needs, likes and dislikes. Other care plans were not well developed and lacked information for about how to support people's health and personal care needs.

People commented on the improvements they had noticed in staffing levels and said this had a positive effect on people who lived at the service. People were also provided with opportunities to share their views with the provider and manager.

4 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We saw some people had been involved in the care planning process and personalised information was available. In other cases there was no record that people had been involved.

We spoke with four people who were using the service on the day of our visit. Each of the people we spoke with told us staff were polite and treated them with dignity and respect. One person said, 'Yes they are very nice, I have no complaints in that respect.' Another person said, 'I receive all the care that I need and the staff are good at what they do. The only issue is that sometimes I have to wait a while to be seen.'

Each of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe and had no concerns about living at the service.

We saw there was a lack of structure and organisation and staff were extremely busy. We spoke with four people who were using the service during our visit and asked if they felt there were enough staff to care for people. One person said, 'I would say they could do with more staff. I sometimes have to wait a few minutes when I press the buzzer.'

We spoke with four people who were using the service and asked if they felt they could express their opinion on the quality of service provided. We were told, 'I've not been formally asked. I guess I would speak to the manager if I needed to.' None of the people we spoke with were aware of ways in which they could give their opinion on the quality of the service.

22 February 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

No one we spoke with had seen their personal care plan although one person told us their relative was involved in planning their care. One person told us, 'I'm not asked what my needs are.' People gave us mixed opinions as to whether their privacy and dignity was respected by the service. One person had experienced the embarrassment of being left naked on their bed with their bedroom door left open.

People also gave us mixed opinions on whether their needs were met by the service. One person said, 'I'm treated as if I have dementia.' But their records showed that they did not have dementia. Another told us, 'The staff are lovely, they all know me.'

Regarding daily stimulation, one person said there were, 'no activities.'

Not all people, we spoke with, felt safe living at the service. One told us, 'If I am ill, staff may not come straight away [when I call for them]. Staff don't know my needs well'they are not organised.' Some people, we spoke with, felt they were treated with respect, but not all. Two people were unhappy about one particular member of staff who spoke disrespectfully to them. People we spoke with were satisfied with the cleanliness of the home.

People we spoke with gave us mixed opinions about whether they were given their prescribed medicines in a safe way. One person said they were but the other person said that they have been, 'occasionally offered other people's tablets and [staff] don't always give them at the right time'I know what tablets I have.' Not all people felt that staff were competent at their job. One person told us, 'Some are, some not'they do their best.'

The people we spoke with thought there were not always enough staff to meet their needs. One person said they were, 'frequently' kept waiting. Another told us, 'I may wait 10 minutes after using the buzzer.'

People's opinion on the quality of the service they were receiving ranged from, 'contented' to, 'Fair to acceptable'not overly impressed.' Not all people felt listened to by staff and management and their concerns sometimes took a while to be addressed. One person told us they had reported the excessive heat in their bedroom, 'three or four weeks ago' and nothing had been done.