Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Pro Care Homes (Blackpool)

Bronswick House

16 -20 Chesterfield Road, Blackpool, FY1 2PP

Goodpublished 3 February 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People felt safe and medicines, safeguarding and risk management were handled well. However, some areas were not clean or in good condition, creating an infection risk, and the report says the service was not always safe.
Effective?
Good
People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had suitable training, people were supported with food and healthcare, and mental capacity requirements were followed.
Caring?
Good
Staff treated people with kindness, patience, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans were personalised and reflected people's preferences and communication needs. People were offered activities, social opportunities and a clear way to raise complaints.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management checks were not effective enough to identify problems with cleanliness, repairs and infection control. Improvements had been introduced, but the provider breached Regulation 17 because its governance systems were not robust.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care alongside weaknesses in cleaning, building maintenance and quality checks.

This was the first inspection since the home registered. Inspectors visited on 3 and 10 January 2024, spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, observed care, checked records and walked around the building.

People generally received safe, effective, caring and responsive support. Staff understood people's needs, supported independence, handled medicines safely and provided personalised care. People described staff as kind and patient, and said they had enough help with their daily needs.

The main problems were the cleanliness and condition of parts of the building, including damp walls and areas that had not been cleaned thoroughly. Most issues had been addressed by the inspection, including a deep clean and the recruitment of domestic staff. However, the home's checks had failed to find these problems, so well-led was rated Requires Improvement and the provider breached Regulation 17.

What inspectors praised

  • Kind and respectful staff

    People said staff were polite, patient and kind. Inspectors saw warm, unrushed conversations and support that respected people's dignity and choices.

    “The staff are so kind and patient I love it here.” from the report

  • Personalised support

    Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and aspirations. Staff encouraged independence and involved people in decisions about daily life.

    “People's care and support was centred around their choices and preferences.” from the report

  • Safe medicines and safeguarding

    Staff understood safeguarding procedures, risks were assessed, and trained staff gave medicines safely. Medicines records and audits were in place.

    “People received their medication safely by trained staff.” from the report

  • Activities and relationships

    People were supported to follow their interests, socialise and maintain important relationships. An activity coordinator provided additional stimulation and support.

    “People were offered a range of activities and opportunities to socialise by staff.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Cleanliness and infection control

    serious

    Some rooms and communal areas had not been cleaned thoroughly, and there were damp walls and damaged wallpaper. A deep clean had taken place and the environment was cleaner, but inspectors recommended continued monitoring.

    “Some areas of the home were not always clean and in a good condition.” from the report

  • Weak management checks

    serious

    Audits were often tick-box exercises and did not identify important problems with cleaning, repairs and infection control. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.

    “The provider did not have an effective management structure.” from the report

  • Domestic staffing and building upkeep

    needs fixing

    There had been a period without a domestic staff member, which contributed to the building not being cleaned and maintained properly. The provider had recruited someone by the inspection.

    “We have been short of a cleaner and staff had been doing more.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all damp walls, damaged wallpaper and minor repairs in communal areas and bathrooms now been completed?
  2. 02How often are communal bathrooms, bedrooms and shared areas cleaned, and who checks that this has been done properly?
  3. 03What changes have been made to the audit and quality-checking systems since inspectors found they had missed cleanliness and infection-control problems?
  4. 04Has the domestic staffing shortfall been fully resolved, and what happens if domestic staff are absent?
  5. 05How will you show families that the improvements required in the action plan are being maintained?

This was an announced comprehensive inspection prompted by concerns about infection control, building maintenance and quality assurance, and it covered all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Bronswick House

6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Bronswick House →

  2. August 2022Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good
  3. February 2020Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  4. July 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  5. March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
  6. June 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
  7. January 2023

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2023.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Same provider

Other services run by Pro Care Homes (Blackpool) Limited

3 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Moor Villa

Preston, PR4
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Blackpool

All in Blackpool

Pennystone Court

Blackpool, FY1 · 0.2 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 8 years agocare home

Belgravia Care Home

Blackpool, FY1 · 0.6 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 8 months agocare home

Links Lodge

Blackpool, FY1 · 0.7 km
Outstanding
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home