You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 September 2019

About the service

Breagha House is a residential care home, providing personal care for 10 people aged 18 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 10 younger adults who have a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Accommodation was provided in a purpose built home across two floors, with communal areas on each floor.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to ten people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras outside to indicate it was a care home, although industrial bins were visible from the road. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Although there was a clear management structure and communication strategies in place at the service, the quality monitoring processes in place did not always highlight when documentation around incidents and restraint had not been completed thoroughly. This presented a risk that people would not be cared for in a consistent way.

People were protected from abuse, as staff were aware of their role in safeguarding people and the provider worked closely with the local authority teams to manage any safeguarding issues. At the time of our inspection there was one safeguarding investigation open, and the local authority told us the service had worked with them in an open and transparent way.

The risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed safely using evidence-based assessment tools, however there were some recording issues in people’s records which the registered manager told us they would address. Following our inspection, we received information from them to show this had been addressed.

People were supported by a group of staff who had been provided with effective training for their role. The numbers of staff reflected and met the needs of people at the service. There were safe recruitment processes in place.

People lived in an environment which was clean, well maintained and provided them with space and privacy. There were effective infection control processes in place to protect people from the risks of infection.

People’s nutritional and health needs were well managed. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received person centred care from a group of staff who knew their needs very well. There was a caring attitude towards people from the staff who supported them. We saw a number of positive interactions between staff and people at the service. One relative told us staff had been “Amazing and very supportive” to both them and their family member. Staff worked to maintain people’s privacy, dignity and encourage their independence.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Goo

Inspection areas



Updated 14 September 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 14 September 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 14 September 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 14 September 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 14 September 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.