Archived: The Brooklands

There was a registered manager at this service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At our last inspection in January 2014 the provider was fully compliant in all areas inspected.

During our inspection we observed that staff were friendly and approachable. We observed staff delivering care which met people’s individual needs and which supported them in a respectful and appropriate way. There was training and processes for staff to follow in place to keep people safe and staff followed these. People’s physical and mental health was promoted. Medicines were stored appropriately and they were administered and recorded as prescribed.

We saw staff ensured people were comfortable and had a newspaper, magazine or puzzle of their choice to occupy them. We saw people were supported in a relaxed and unhurried manner. Staff were caring and communicated well with people. Staff joined people for lunch and ensured the occasion was social as well monitoring people’s nutritional activities.

Staff focused on people they were caring for rather that the task they were carrying out. Staff spoke in a positive manner about the people they cared for and had taken the time to get to know people’s preferences and wishes. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and this was demonstrated in their responses to people and recognition of when people required additional support.

People’s privacy was respected. People had their independence promoted. They were offered choice on how they wanted their care delivered and were given choices throughout the day. The service endeavoured to provide end of life care so people had a choice about where they spend the end of their life. Relatives were offered the opportunity to stay with their relative at this time.

Staff were appropriately trained and confident to meet the needs of people they cared for. Staff had access to additional training specific to the needs of people using the service, such as palliative care, dementia awareness and falls management.

People, relatives and staff spoke very highly of the registered manager and felt the home was well-led.

People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. Visitors were welcomed at any time and offered refreshments or meals if visiting over a meal time.

Records we looked at were personalised and included decisions people had made about their care including their likes, dislikes and personal preferences. There was a varied activity programme for people based on individual and group preferences. Activities included one-to-one time and outings or time in pursuit of personal hobbies or interests

The service was managed in an inclusive manner. People and staff had their input respected. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities for people’s care. The registered manager had systems in place to review the service and to ensure the service responded to the current needs of people.

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe? People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Procedures in place to protect vulnerable adults were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People who used the service were only deprived of their liberty when this had been authorised by the Court of Protection, or by a Supervisory Body under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

We saw that policies and procedures were in place in relation to receiving, administering and storing medication. This meant people were protected because the service provided instructions so that staff handled medication safely. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

Is the service effective? People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People told us they liked the food and were offered choices. We saw that people were provided with the appropriate support and encouragement they needed to meet their nutritional needs.

Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring? People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed a satisfaction survey and provided regular feedback. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People could be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We spoke with the manager, two members of staff and a Community Staff Nurse. We sampled three care records. The Community Staff Nurse told us, 'Staff are very caring and treat people with dignity and respect.' We observed staff speak to people with consideration and respect.

People's needs were assessed and individual care plans developed. People's health needs were monitored and people were supported to engage in activities and access the community.

Procedures were in place for cleanliness and infection control. People who used the service told us that the home was clean.

Medication was kept securely and appropriately administered. Medical risk assessments were in place to ensure risks to people were reduced.

Systems were in place for the maintenance and servicing of equipment. People's independence was promoted through the use of aids such walking frames and hearing aids.

Accurate records were maintained and securely stored to ensure confidentiality and data protection.

We talked to the manager and staff at The Brooklands and found that consent was now being sought for people's care. This included using correct procedures if someone was unable to consent for themselves, for example due to dementia.

We saw that care planning was detailed and personalised, but that people's consent to their care was not always being properly obtained.

We found that the manager checked the quality of care at The Brooklands regularly, and also that staff were well trained and aware of how to protect people from abuse.