- Care home
Broadacres Care Home
Assessment report published 10 August 2026
Contents
On this page
- Overview
- Assessing needs
- Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
- How staff, teams and services work together
- Supporting people to live healthier lives
- Monitoring and improving outcomes
- Consent to care and treatment
Effective
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first inspection of a newly registered provider. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.
Assessing needs
The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Care plans were not always reviewed in line with the provider's expected timescales. For example, 1 person's records showed that several assessments were overdue for review. This meant changes in the person's needs may not have been identified promptly or reflected in their care plan, creating a risk that care was not always based on up-to-date information. Staff knew people well which minimised this risk.
Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People received a variety of meals and snacks which met their dietary requirements. The catering team had a good insight in to modified diets and had all relevant information to assist them to prepare food in line with people’s needs and requirements. Hydration stations were well situated throughout the service and people had access to plenty of snacks and drinks in between meals. The home had recently been awarded a rating of gold in the hydration challenge.
How staff, teams and services work together
The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. Systems were in place to support staff to share and pass on important information about people’s care to enable them to offer consistent care. For example, shift handovers gave staff the opportunity to pass on information to their colleagues and regular staff meetings took place to share information and ideas. However, staff did not always work effectively with each other to ensure consistency of care. The management team were working with staff to improve communication and teamwork.
Supporting people to live healthier lives
The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People had access to healthcare professionals. We saw external professionals were involved in people’s care as required such as GP, district nurses and physiotherapists.
Monitoring and improving outcomes
The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People’s care plans identified their assessed needs and how to achieve a good outcome. For example, 1 person’s care plan recorded strategies to use to ensure their distress was kept to a minimum. Staff interacted with them to ensure they felt content and settled.
Consent to care and treatment
The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The service followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw evidence to demonstrate people had been involved in decisions about their care. Where people lacked capacity to consent, decisions had been made in people’s best interests. We observed staff interacting with people and found they explained the task they were carrying out and sought their consent.