Bradbury House

Updated 18 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 01 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 18 March 2021

Bradbury House is a residential care service for older people located in a central location in Braintree. There were 19 people living at the service at the time of our inspection. The service is located in a historic building, which had been adapted and there was a lift between the two floors.

This inspection was carried out on the 25 and 30 October 2017. At the last inspection the service was rated ‘Good’ and at this inspection we found that the service remained ‘Good’.

There was a new registered manager in post, but they had worked at the service for many years in a number of different roles. 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 spoke highly about the care they received and told us that they were safe and well looked after. Staff knew how to protect people from harm and where concerns were identified about individuals they were responded to appropriately.

Risks were assessed and steps put into place to reduce the risk of harm to individuals. Medicines were well organised and safely managed.

There was sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. The service benefited from a stable staff team who knew people well. People expressed confidence in the knowledge and skills of staff. We saw that staff received an induction when they started work at the service and on going training to ensure that they were kept up to date with their knowledge and competent.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The manager was aware of their legal responsibilities and had made the appropriate referrals to professionals for assessment when people lacked capacity and needed constant supervision to keep them safe.

People spoke positively about the meals and we saw that people had good access to drinks and snacks throughout the day. Staff worked with a range of community health professionals to promote people’s health.

Staff interacted with people in a warm and friendly manner. People spoke highly of staff and described them as attentive and kind. Staff communicated effectively and we saw that they worked well together to meet people’s needs. People were consulted about the care they received and were enabled to make decisions about how it was provided. Care was underpinned by care plans which provided information to staff about people’s care and support needs and preferences.

People had access to a range of interesting activities which promoted their wellbeing. There were clear arrangements in place to respond to concerns and ensure that they were addressed promptly.

People told us that the registered manager was visible and accessible and the service was well managed. Staff were motivated and well supported. The provider had clear arrangements in place to oversee the quality of care and drive on going improvements at the service.