Britannia Care

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service had an open and proactive culture in terms of learning from incidents, and all staff were able to tell us what they would do if risk emerged. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns, including safeguarding, with senior colleagues and management. Notifications to CQC and other partner organisations were consistent with care records. Training records indicated staff were developed well, particularly in terms of care delivery with respect and dignity.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

A strength of the service was its processes to introduce new people to the home, which prides itself on delivering care for a diverse group of people. We observed this pride was grounded in reality, as people living in the home were from a range of ages and backgrounds. The admission process included initial meetings with senior staff, people and relevant stakeholders to understand people’s needs, including religious and cultural. This was then carried through to care and support plans which emphasised delivering care which respected people’s wishes and aspirations. People could describe this well and complemented the service for respecting their needs. Relatives were also positive about this aspect of care and said they felt included and respected by the service.

The service liaised effectively with other service providers, including social workers, GP practices and community nursing services. Specifically, there was robust evidence in care plans demonstrating people and families were supported through the process of joining the service, from initial home visits, opportunities to view the service with appropriate language support and through links to religious and cultural groups to help with the transition.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Documentation, notifications to CQC as well as training and development records indicated a robust understanding of safeguarding by the service and staff at all levels. Staff were able to describe the safeguarding process and gave examples of what they would do if risk became apparent. The service had a safeguarding policy which made references to relevant resources and also covered Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people were subject to DoLS theservicehad made applications to the local authority and there was clear monitoring in place.DoLSensure if a person is restricted in a way which deprives them of their liberty in a care home, it is only donewhen it is in their best interests, is necessary for their safety, and all other options have been considered. 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were involved in managing risks which affected their daily lives. Staff encouraged mobility, supported people sensitively, and helped them maintain independence safely. We observed people mobilising with support; accessing the various indoor and outdoor spaces for social and cultural activities. The emphasis was on respecting people’s wishes with minimal restrictions.

The provider detected and managed potential risks in the care environment. Equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The service was purpose-built as a care home, with the ground floor a social and dining hub; most people spent their time in the various rooms and engaged in a range of activities, which they said they enjoyed. Environmental risks were monitored and well controlled. Equipment such as hoists and mobility aids was used correctly, personalised where appropriate, and well maintained. Communal areas were safe and clutter‑free, and equipment not in use was stored appropriately.

However, when we visited signage was not consistent and décor was similar on each floor, making it difficult to navigate. Noticeboards seemed geared towards informing staff rather than people living at the service. The provider started to improve signage during the assessment period to improve people’s orientation of the internal building, particularly on the upper floors.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff rotas and a dependency tool, plus feedback from people and staff indicated safe staffing levels were maintained. People told us they felt there were less staff around at weekends; however, we found no evidence of concern with staffing levels over a weekend. Feedback from people and families was very positive about staff; in terms of their skills, understanding of needs and wishes, proactive attitude and team spirit.

Staff training and development was evidenced well, with dedicated quiet space available to complete online courses, as well as development being a regular element at team meetings. The registered manager had worked at the service for several years starting as a carer and benefited from external training supported by the provider, to gain relevant qualifications necessary for the role.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was visibly clean and odour‑free, with good hygiene practices in place. Staff used PPE appropriately, and infection risks were well managed. The service had an external inspection in May 2026 and received positive feedback on infection prevention and control.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

Medicines were stored securely however; systems were not always in place to ensure safe medicines administration. For example, the actual time of administration was not always recorded for those which had specific time intervals. Special instructions about how medicines should be taken were not consistently included on the medicines administration record (MAR). This placed people at risk of not receiving medicines in line with manufacturer’s instructions.

Medicine-related risk assessments were not always in place, those in place did not consistently include all recommended actions to mitigate risks.

Protocols for ‘when required’ (PRN) and variable dose medicines were not always available or sufficiently detailed to guide staff to administer the appropriate dose. This meant people were at risk of not receiving medicines appropriately.

Records for topical medicines, such as patches and creams were not always accurately maintained.

Staff had completed medicines training and competency assessments, however, with the concerns found, we were not assured the assessments were effective in assessing staff competence.

Medicines audits were in place, and staff had completed medicines training and competency assessments; however, we were not assured either audits or training were effective given the concerns found during the inspection.

The provider was responsive to the assessment findings and had taken action to address the shortfalls identified.