Braceborough Hall Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The registered manager had effective processes in place to ensure that incidents and events at the service were thoroughly investigated, with clear evidence of learning and improvement.

We reviewed investigations and monitoring of various events, such as falls and the management of individuals' anxieties. These demonstrated that changes had been made to people's care plans to reduce the risk of recurrence. Staff we spoke with reported good communication from both managers and within the wider team. Regular handovers were held to discuss ongoing issues, and a WhatsApp group was used to keep staff informed about incidents and any resulting changes to care.

The service had clear processes to ensure people received timely support from healthcare professionals when needed. Each person had a one-page profile that could be shared with hospital staff if they were admitted, helping to maintain continuity of care. Staff worked proactively with health services, including opticians and chiropodists, to arrange appointments at the care home wherever possible.

Relatives spoke positively about the support provided during hospital visits, particularly in emergencies. One relative told us: “Staff always contacted me if [Name] needed to go to hospital and worked with me to make sure they got there and back safely. For example, the last time [Name] went to hospital, staff accompanied them and stayed until I arrived, and I was able to bring them home.”

People told us they felt safe living at the service, and relatives expressed confidence in the staff caring for their family members. One relative commented, “The staff treat [family member] very well. [Family member] can be very difficult, but staff are very good to them.”

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of the types of abuse people could be exposed to and the actions they would take to ensure protection. All staff we spoke with said they would report concerns to the senior in charge or the registered manager and were confident these would be addressed promptly. One staff member shared an example of a past concern they raised, explaining how the registered manager responded quickly to resolve the issue and safeguard people.

Staff were also aware they could escalate concerns to the local authority safeguarding team or the Care Quality Commission (CQC) if necessary, although all expressed confidence in their manager’s responsiveness. We saw evidence that the registered manager had worked collaboratively with the local authority safeguarding team, undertaking thorough investigations and implementing outcomes to maintain safety. Where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions, the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of individuals who may lack capacity, requiring that; People are supported to make their own decisions wherever possible, and decisions made on their behalf are in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, this is usually through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw evidence that when people lacked capacity, the service followed MCA principles, using best-interest decision-making processes, involving relatives and health professionals, and working in the least restrictive way to support people.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed, and measures were in place to reduce these risks while supporting individuals’ independence. For example, one person enjoyed walking around the village, and appropriate arrangements were implemented to enable this safely. Where people were at risk of falls, measures were introduced to maintain independence while reducing risk. These included sensor alarms to alert staff when individuals who might need support were moving around. People who required mobility aids had access to walking frames to help maintain their mobility.

Where people were at risk of pressure damage to their skin, they were supported with appropriate pressure-relieving aids and regular repositioning. These measures helped maintain skin integrity and prevented harm while Staff we spoke with knew people well and understood how best to offer support tailored to their needs. This knowledge was reinforced by up-to-date information in people’s care plans and effective communication among staff. One member of staff told us, “The care plans show exactly what people want and how they want it.”

The environment people lived in was well maintained. The provider employed a small maintenance team responsible for carrying out regular checks and addressing any areas requiring improvement. The service had recently undergone a fire safety inspection, and the team worked promptly to address the areas highlighted by the fire safety officers. An action plan was in place to track progress, detailing completed actions and prioritising outstanding tasks.

People, relatives, and staff told us there were enough staff available to ensure people received support when needed. One relative commented: “Whenever I visit you have to be let in by someone, and I am let in in a timely way. I have no impression of people waiting for care and there has been staff around. When [family member] pulls the bell, staff come straightaway.” Throughout our visits, we observed people being cared for promptly. When call bells rang, they were answered without delay. We reviewed duty rosters and found staffing levels were in line with the provider’s established safe staffing numbers. Recruitment files showed the registered manager followed safe recruitment practices. This included using the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to check that staff did not have criminal records. Where overseas staff were employed, we reviewed documentation confirming their right to work in the adult social care sector in this country.

People were protected from the risk of infection through clear policies and procedures that provided staff with guidance on infection prevention and control. Staff received appropriate training to ensure they understood and followed best practices. People and their relatives told us they were satisfied with the cleanliness of the service and the measures in place to reduce infection risks. Relatives confirmed that staff consistently used personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly when supporting their family members. Our observations and discussions with staff supported these comments, demonstrating staff’s strong knowledge of how their practices helped minimise infection risks.

People’s medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice. Staff received appropriate training before administering medicines and demonstrated a clear understanding of individual needs. For example, one person required time-specific medication, and staff were aware of the exact times these needed to be given. A staff member explained that the person liked to set an alarm on their phone as a reminder, saying: “We all know when the medicines are due, but on the odd occasion we’re a few minutes late because we’re supporting someone else, [Name] rings the bell to remind us.” They added that this approach gave the person a sense of control over their care.