Braceborough Hall Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and

promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

The service’s vision and strategy were underpinned by clear policies on equality, diversity and inclusion, human rights, and safeguarding. The registered manager ensured staff received appropriate training in these areas to deliver high-quality, person-centred care. Feedback from people, relatives, and staff consistently demonstrated that the registered manager and team fostered an inclusive culture. Staff described working collaboratively to prioritise residents’ needs above all else, with one member stating, “We always work to provide person-centred care; residents come first. We maintain openness with relatives and have a strong, supportive team.” Relatives echoed this sentiment, praising the quality of care and commitment to residents. One relative commented, “If I had to go into a home and it was like Braceborough, I would be happy to go there.” Another added, “They don’t do what’s easiest for staff; they do what’s best for the people.”

Throughout the assessment, staff consistently reported feeling supported by the registered manager and senior carers. The registered manager fostered a strong sense of teamwork and was described as approachable and open in their leadership style. Staff told us that management was visible and accessible, and that information was shared transparently. One staff member commented, “Happy with the leadership of the service. If there is anything we need doing, they sort things out—very approachable.” Another said, “The management team are around and visible and I can talk to them.” A third added, “They are really good, and they are open; if we want information, they make sure we have it.”

People, relatives, and staff told us they felt enabled to speak up if they had concerns. Relatives knew who to raise issues with and were confident they would be listened to. Staff consistently gave positive feedback about the management team. One staff member told us, “If I go to the manager with any concerns, I feel they would act and they are good at maintaining confidentiality.”

The provider had policies in place to support inclusiveness and equality for the staff who worked for them. All the staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the management team. One staff member told us about a staff day which had recently been held. They said, “It was very good. We were able to share information, and our ideas were listened to.”

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance.

The provider was well known to staff and had previously maintained effective oversight of quality monitoring processes. However, due to unforeseen circumstances in recent months, they had been unable to fulfil this role as planned. As a result, some quality monitoring processes were not undertaken as regularly as scheduled. We did not identify any negative impact on the care people received during our inspection. However, the lack of consistent oversight posed a potential risk to the quality and safety of care going forward. We discussed our concerns with the provider. They acknowledged the issue and confirmed they had recognised the need to address it. The provider had already implemented plans to strengthen oversight, including appointing a representative to support them in fulfilling their legal responsibilities. In addition, they had employed an individual to assist the registered manager with human resources and administrative duties. Most quality monitoring processes were being completed. The registered manager was supported by senior staff who undertook audits in areas such as incidents and accidents, medicines, equipment, environment, and care plans. While actions were taken when issues were identified, some records lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate this clearly. We shared this feedback with the registered manager and their administration manager, who were receptive and began taking steps to improve documentation.

Throughout our assessment there was clear evidence of the staff working collaboratively with external health professionals who supported people. One staff member gave us an example of how they had worked with the community psychiatric nursing team to support a person whose mental health had deteriorated. We saw evidence of how the staff had worked with the team and the person’s relative to manage their needs. We also spoke with a health professional who visited the service regularly who told us the staff were responsive to their guidance and advice. When they ask staff to undertake specific monitoring of people they told us it was always done. They said, “Staff know people well and always remember to do things for them.”

We found evidence that the registered manager and staff embraced innovative approaches to improve the quality of care. For example, a health professional told us they had introduced a virtual ward round pilot at the service, aimed at reducing hospital admissions. They reported that staff responded positively and were enthusiastic about using the system, stating, “the reaction filled me with joy, they were really on board with using the system.” This demonstrates a commitment to adopting new ideas and technologies to enhance outcomes for people.