Braywood Gardens, in Carlton, Nottingham, has been rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), placed into special measures and has been prevented from admitting new residents without CQC’s permission, following an inspection carried out in May.
Braywood Gardens is a residential care home, operated by Runwood Homes Limited, providing accommodation and personal care to older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 88 people living the home.
The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns CQC had received around people’s safety and personal care being provided to people.
Following this inspection, the home’s overall rating has dropped from requires improvement to inadequate. Its ratings for being effective and caring dropped from good to inadequate. It has again been rated requires improvement for being safe and well-led. On this occasion, CQC partially inspected how responsive the service was, focusing on areas where they received concerns. Therefore, it remains rated as good from their previous inspection.
CQC have placed conditions on the service to prevent more people from being admitted without CQC’s permission, until significant improvements have been made. The service has also been placed in special measures, which means it will be kept under close review by CQC to keep people already living there safe whilst improvements are made. If CQC doesn’t see rapid and widespread improvement, further action will be taken.
Greg Rielly, CQC deputy director of operations in the midlands, said:
“When we inspected Braywood Gardens, it was concerning to see a lack of strong leadership. Our experience tells us that when a service isn’t well-led, it is less likely they’re able to meet people’s needs in the other areas we inspect, which is what we found here.
“The main issue was that leaders didn’t ensure there were enough staff to support the people living at the home which impacted the quality of care people were receiving.
“For example, we saw one person try to stand but was unsteady on their feet. As there wasn’t any staff around to help, our inspector had to help them to sit back down, or they would have likely fallen over. When we brought this up with staff, they said they were too busy to help.
“We heard people often having to shout for staff to support them which didn’t always happen. One person told us they had complained that staff weren’t quick enough when they needed support to use the toilet. The staff member responded by telling them to use their incontinence pad and they would have to wait in their used pad until the morning when staff could support them. This shows staff didn’t always treat people with kindness or dignity.
“During our visit, people also told us they were worried about their safety. We found staff had recorded incidents where residents had been in altercations with each other, which hadn’t been referred to the local authority safeguarding team. This means these incidents hadn’t been investigated thoroughly and people were at risk of having them happen again as a result.
"Vulnerable people were relying on all staff members to act as their advocates, to help them live their best lives and it is unacceptable the people they relied on were treating them this way.
"We have told Braywood Gardens where we expect to see rapid and widespread improvements and will continue to monitor them closely to keep people safe while this happens. We’ve also told them they can’t admit any new residents until these improvements are made. We will return to check on their progress and won’t hesitate to take further action if people are not receiving the care they have a right to expect.”
Inspectors found:
- People were at risk of their health needs not being appropriately supported, pressure related skin damage, poor moving and handling, and choking on the wrong texture diet
- Staff didn’t always manage medicines well
- People’s holistic needs were not effectively assessed to provide evidence-based care
- People did not feel involved with reviewing their care plan
- Staff did not always work effectively with external professionals, or within their own team
- People felt that not enough activities were offered, and those activities that were offered were not what they would choose
- People sat for long periods without any meaningful activity.