You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 November 2018

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Bramshaw House on 27 September 2018.

Bramshaw House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Bramshaw House is registered to provide accommodation for people requiring personal care for up to 10 people, older people and younger adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, physical disabilities, sensory impairments and mental health support needs. Bramshaw House is a large detached premises in a residential street that is split across two floors. At the time of the inspection, 10 people were living in Bramshaw House.

Bramshaw House has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using this service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2017.

People felt safe and there were systems and processes in place to keep people safe from abuse. Staff and people had support to knew how to recognise and report abuse. Any concerns were reviewed by the registered manager and reported to the local authority safeguarding team. People were helped to understand what discriminatory abuse was and who they could speak with to get help to prevent this. People said this was useful and made them feel safe.

People had assessments that identified potential risks to their safety. People, or people acting in their best interests, were involved in deciding how to take appropriate actions to manage these risks and made sure people’s personal freedom, independence and choices were respected. Accident and incidents were responded to quickly to keep people safe and reviewed to look at how to prevent them happening again.

There were safe recruitment processes and the service had enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had regular medicine administration training and competency assessments and there were systems and processes to help make sure that people received their medicines safely. Infection control risks were well managed and the premises were clean and hygienic. Staff had received food hygiene training to know how to safely support people with any food preparation and handling support they needed.

People told us the service was effective and they had a good quality of life. One person said, “They look after me very well, they know what they are doing”. Another person said, “I am happy”. People were supported to achieve the outcomes they needed and wanted support with. Staff received equality and diversity training and did not focus on people’s disabilities when supporting them to achieve their choices. One person said, “They help me do everything that other people do.”

Staff worked well with each other and with other organisations to co-ordinate people’s support to help make sure people’s needs and choices were met consistently. Staff had a comprehensive induction and probation programme and on-going training and supervisions to give them the necessary skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and support. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the poli

Inspection areas



Updated 27 November 2018

The service was safe.

Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from abuse.

There were safe recruitment practices and the service had enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Risks to people were monitored and managed to help keep people safe from avoidable harm.

Medicines were managed safely and the service was clean and hygienic.



Updated 27 November 2018

The service was effective.

People’s needs were assessed and they had support to achieve good outcomes and have a good quality of life.

Staff received training and supervisions and had the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs.

People consented to their care and the service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s healthcare and eating and drinking needs were effectively met.



Updated 27 November 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were compassionate and listened to people.

Staff communicated with people in ways that they understood.

People’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality were respected.

People were involved in making decisions about their support and were encouraged to be as independent as possible.



Updated 27 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People had care plans in place that reflected who they were as a person and staff knew what their needs were in all areas of their lives.

People’s care was regularly reviewed to make sure they got the support they wanted and needed without any unnecessary delays.

People were involved in planning their support and followed their interests and achieved their goals.

Staff supported people to develop and maintain relationships with important people in their lives.



Updated 27 November 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a positive, inclusive and open culture committed to respecting people and helping them to live the best possible life.

Staff were supported by management to help understand their roles and responsibilities so they could deliver the best quality care.

Quality and safety risks were well managed at all levels of management and the service was committed to continually improving.

People, staff and relatives were involved in developing the service.