Broomcroft House Care Home

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 75 (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 leadership team shared learning from incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns with staff at team meetings. The service demonstrated a positive culture in which the duty of candour was clearly respected. We found examples where people were formally written to following incidents, such as falls. This practice highlighted the service’s commitment to openness, transparency, and continuous improvement.

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. Effective pre-assessment processes were in place to ensure people were admitted safely and with appropriate preparation. This meant staff were familiar with people’s needs prior to admission, enabling care to be planned and delivered in accordance with those needs from the outset. We observed staff communicating effectively with leaders regarding a new admission to the home. The service collaborated with health professionals to ensure smooth transitions and continuity of care. One professional told us, “Broomcroft House are good at knowing when to refer to us for our support.”

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. Every person we spoke to told us they felt safe and had no concerns about their safety. Staff had all received up to date safeguarding training and implemented this learning into their practice. With one staff member telling us, “I’d report any safety concerns immediately to managers, I know these would be taken seriously.” People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We assessed whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Mental capacity assessments were in place and decision-specific. However, further detail was needed on some occasions to clearly evidence the rationale for decisions, including how individuals were supported to make them and how their views were considered. This feedback was acknowledged by leaders to strengthen future assessments.

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’s risk assessments were detailed and provided sufficient guidance to staff to enable them to carry out safe and effective care. Risk assessments were reviewed and updated on a regular basis in accordance with the service’s policy. Staff were knowledgeable about risks posed to people and how to support individualised needs and preferences. We observed people receiving meals in line with their assessed needs and people being supported to mobilise safely in accordance with their individual mobility assessments. Any risks to people’s health were addressed in a timely manner. A person told us, “When my skin got sore, they [staff] got the doctor to come quickly.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The environment was nicely decorated and well maintained. There was a garden which people could use, if they wished. Regular health and safety checks were carried out by an on-site maintenance team. This meant people lived in a well-maintained home where any environmental issues were addressed promptly. We reviewed fire safety measures and found that people had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place to ensure they could be safely supported to evacuate in the event of an emergency. Staff had received fire safety training and were aware of the service procedures and policies around fire safety.

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. All necessary pre-employment checks were completed before staff commenced employment at the service. Records included application forms, checks on employment history, right to work in the UK checks, health checks, references from previous employers and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. People were supported by enough staff, and the provider regularly monitored staffing levels to ensuring these aligned with their dependency tool.

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. During our visits we observed the home was clean and hygienic. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available throughout the home and staff told us they had enough PPE to use. There was an infection prevention and control (IPC) policy which was accessible to staff. Laundry was well managed and cleaning products were stored safely in a locked cupboard. The kitchen was clean, with food stored safely and labelled appropriately.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. However, we found that information relating to medication changes was not always documented in care plans or daily records, which increased the risk of errors and impacted effective stock oversight. There were also instances of medicines running out, linked to delays in obtaining prescriptions and challenges in managing changes mid-cycle. The provider had recognised these issues and taken quick action to strengthen recording systems, staff oversight, and stock management processes. Despite these concerns, we found that medicines were obtained, stored, administered, and disposed of safely. Controlled drugs were stored securely and managed in line with relevant guidance. Appropriate checks were completed, and two staff members were involved in their administration in accordance with best practice.