You are here

Archived: Bruno's Cottage Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 17 May 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on the 26 February and 2 March 2016.

Bruno’s Cottage provides accommodation with personal care for up to five people with a range of needs including, for example, people with learning disabilities and people on the autism spectrum. There were five people in residence when we inspected.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The new manager in post was applying to register with CQC when we inspected.

People were safe. People were protected by robust recruitment procedures from receiving unsafe care from care staff that were unsuited to the job. They were safeguarded from abuse and poor practice by care staff that knew what action they needed to take if they suspected this was happening. Care records contained risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and helped to keep them safe but also enabled positive risk taking.

People were cared for by sufficient numbers of care staff that were experienced and had received the training they needed to do their job safely. Care staff had received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the complex care needs of each person. They were able to meet the assessed needs of people living at the home.

People’s care needs had been assessed prior to admission and they each had an agreed care plan. Their care plans were regularly reviewed, reflected their individual needs and provided care staff with the information and guidance they needed to provide person centred care.

People were enabled to do things for themselves by friendly care staff that were attentive to each person’s individual needs and understood their capabilities. People’s individual preferences for the way they liked to receive their care and support were respected. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s healthcare needs were met and they received timely treatment from other community based healthcare professionals when this was necessary. People’s medicines were appropriately and safely managed. Medicines were securely stored and there were suitable arrangements in place for their timely administration.

People’s individual nutritional needs were assessed, monitored and met with appropriate guidance from healthcare professionals that was acted upon. People had enough to eat and drink. People who needed support with eating and drinking received the help they required.

People, their representatives or significant others, were assured that if they were dissatisfied with the quality of the service they would be listened to and that appropriate remedial action would be taken to try to resolve matters to their satisfaction.

People received care from care staff that were supported and encouraged by the provider and senior care staff to do a good job caring for people. The quality of the service provided had been audited by the new manager and the provider and improvements made when necessary.

Inspection areas



Updated 17 May 2016

The service was safe.

People�s care needs and any associated risks were assessed before they were admitted to the home. Risks were regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, acted upon with the involvement of other professionals so that people were kept safe.

People received their care from sufficient numbers of care staff that had the experience and knowledge to provide safe care.

People received the timely treatment they needed and their medicines were competently administered and securely stored.



Updated 17 May 2016

The service was effective.

People benefitted from being cared for by care staff that knew and acted upon their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People received care from care staff that had the training and acquired skills they needed to meet people�s complex needs.

People�s healthcare and nutritional needs were met and monitored so that other healthcare professionals were appropriately involved when necessary.



Updated 17 May 2016

The service was caring.

People were individually involved and supported to make choices about their day-to-day care. Care staff respected people�s preferences and the choices they were able to make about how they received their care.

People�s dignity was assured when they received personal care and they were treated with kindness and compassion.

People received their care from care staff that encouraged them to retain as much independence as possible by doing much as they could for themselves.



Updated 17 May 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed prior to admission and subsequently reviewed regularly so that they received the timely care they needed.

People had care plans that reflected their individual needs and how these were to be met by the care staff.

Appropriate and timely action was taken to address people�s complaints or dissatisfaction with the service provided.


Requires improvement

Updated 17 May 2016

The service was not always well-led.

A registered manager was not in place.

People�s quality of care was monitored by the systems in place and timely

action was taken to make improvements when necessary.

People benefited from receiving care from staff that received the support and guidance they needed to do their job well.