Brown Edge House Residential Home

Updated 18 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 24 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 18 March 2021

This unannounced inspection took place on 26 and 28 November 2018.

Brown Edge House Residential Home is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 20 residents. The home is in the Nutgrove area of St Helens, Merseyside. At the time of the inspection visit 20 people were residing at the home.

Brown Edge House Residential Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

We last carried out a comprehensive inspection at Brown Edge House Residential Home in April 2016. At that inspection the home was rated good.

At this inspection visit carried out in November 2018, we found the registered provider had maintained their good rating but we identified some areas for improvement within the key question safe.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 this inspection visit carried out in November 2018, we found environmental risk was not always appropriately identified and responded to in a timely manner. We have made a recommendation about this.

The home had been supported by other professionals to ensure medicines were suitably and safely managed in line with good practice guidance. Although improvements had been made these were not yet firmly embedded. We have made a recommendation about this.

People who lived at the home and relatives told us the home was a good place to live. It was repeatedly described as ‘home from home’ with staff being referred to as extended family. We were told care provision was person centred and delivered in line with people’s choice.

There was ongoing commitment from the registered manager to ensure staff had the appropriate training and skills to carry out their role. Staff told us they had the correct skills to enable them to carry out their role.

Relatives told us the home was good at meeting the needs of people. We saw evidence of multi-agency working to promote effective care. A visiting health professional praised the skills and knowledge of staff who worked at the home.

Staff retention at the home was good. This meant people were supported by staff who knew people well.

People who lived at the home and relatives praised the caring and helpful nature of staff. From observations we saw staff were patient and respectful with people.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff could identify types of abuse and how to report any concerns.

People, relatives and professionals told us there were enough staff on duty to meet individual needs. We observed responses to call bells and noted they were answered in a timely manner.

People praised the quality and availability of food. The dining area was pleasantly decorated to enhance the dining experience for people. We observed meals being provided and noted there were sufficient quantities of food and flexible choice for people.

People and relatives praised the standard of cleanliness at the home. We found the home was well-maintained to ensure the comfort of people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. We saw people had freedom to move throughout the building. Consent to care and treatment was routinely sought.

Staff who worked at the home described it as a good place to work. They praised the skills of the new registered manager and said the home was well-led. Staff said they had confidence in the new registered manager and the improvements they had started to make. People and their relatives told us they also considered the service to be well-led.

The registered provider liaised with health professionals when people required end of life care at the home to ensure people received care in line with good practice. We received positive feedback regarding the way in which staff worked with people at the end of their life.

We looked at how complaints were managed and addressed by the registered provider. At the time of the inspection no one had any complaints about how the service was delivered. We were told by relatives the manager was approachable and would take time out to listen to any concerns they may have.

Feedback from relatives about the home and how it was managed was positive.