• Care Home
  • Care home

Bradbury House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Wasdale Road, Gosforth, Seascale, Cumbria, CA20 1AU (019467) 25061

Provided and run by:
Abbeyfield Society (The)

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 12 November 2020

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 conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

This inspection took place on 22 October 2020 and was announced.

Overall inspection


Updated 12 November 2020

The inspection took place between 27 October 2017 and 1 November 2017. Our visit to the home on 27 October was unannounced. We arranged to return to the home on 1 November 2017 to look at additional records.

Bradbury House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Bradbury House is a modern, purpose built home and provides accommodation and personal care for up to 21 people. It is situated in the rural village of Gosforth and is near to all the amenities of the village.

All accommodation is in single, en-suite rooms and the home has a large dining and sitting room and a smaller quiet lounge. The home is owned by the Abbeyfield society, a charity which runs similar homes throughout the country.

At the last inspection of this home in June 2015, the service was rated as good. At this inspection in October and November 2017 we found the service remained good. We judged that the key question, “Is the service responsive” was no longer outstanding. The previous outstanding elements around the provision of activities and care planning were not found at this inspection. Although people told us there were a range of activities provided in the home, some people were not able to enjoy the activities provided due to their health. We also found that, although the care staff knew how to support individuals, the quality of care records varied and some had not been fully completed or reviewed regularly.

Everyone we spoke with told us this was a good home and said people were well cared for. They told us there were enough staff to provide the support people required and the staff treated people in a kind and caring way.

People were safe living in the home. Hazards to people’s safety had been identified and managed. The premises and equipment were checked to ensure they were safe for people to use.

Robust systems were used when new staff were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work in the home.

Medicines were handled safely and people were supported to access appropriate health care services to maintain their health.

The staff were trained to provide people’s support and ensure their safety.

People’s rights were respected. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Where people were not able to agree to aspects of their own care people who knew them well had been included in making decisions in their best interests. We have made a recommendation about improving best interest decision records.

People were provided with meals and drinks they enjoyed. Their visitors were made welcome in the home and people were able to maintain relationships that were important to them.

The staff knew people well and care was planned and provided to meet people’s needs. However we found some records had not been fully completed and some had not been reviewed in line with the provider’s policy.

The provider had a procedure for responding to complaints. People were confident that any concerns they raised would be looked into and resolved.

The service was well managed. People knew the registered manager and how they could speak to her. People were asked for their views about the service they received. The registered manager set high standards and monitored the service to ensure these were met.

The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager. There were arrangements in place to ensure the effective management of the home.