You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 October 2017

We carried out our inspection on 18 September 2017. The inspection was unannounced.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection in October 2015, the service was rated Good in all domains and overall with Requires Improvement in Well-led because the service did not have a registered manager. Since that inspection a registered manager had been appointed and we have rated Well-led as Good.

Brockfield House is a residential nursing home for up to 45 people older people some of who are living with dementia or have issues with mental health. It is located in Stanwick, a village near Wellingborough. Accommodation is on two floors. There are four communal lounges and a dining area. People have access to an enclosed courtyard garden. At the time of our inspection 43 people were using the service.

The service was managed by a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager understood the responsibilities associated with their registration.

Staff understood and put into practice the provider’s procedures for safeguarding people from abuse and avoidable harm. Only staff that were assessed as suited to work at the service were recruited. There were enough suitably skilled staff to meet the needs of people using the service.

Suitably trained staff supported people to take their medicines. The management of medicines including administration, storage and recording were safe.

People using the service were supported by staff who had received relevant and appropriate training. Staff were supported through effective supervision and training. Staff understood the relevance to their work of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They sought people’s consent before they provided care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible: the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Staff understood people’s dietary requirements and supported people to eat a balanced diet and promote healthy eating. Where required, people’s food and fluid intake was recorded and monitored. People were supported to access the relevant health services when they needed to.

We saw several interactions between people and staff and it was evident that staff were considerate and caring. People were able to participate in a variety of meaningful activities that reflected their hobbies and interests. People received care that reflected their preferences.

People were involved as far as they could be in the assessments of their needs and in regular reviews of their plan of care. They were provided with information about their care and support options and were involved as far as they could be in decisions about their care and support. Relatives told us they felt involved.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People knew how to raise concerns if they had any. The provider acted on concerns people had raised.

Social activities helped people at Brockfield House become an integral part of the local village community.

There were effective procedures for monitoring and assessing the quality of service that promoted continuous improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 October 2017

The service remains good.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 October 2017

The service remains good.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 October 2017

The service remains good.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 25 October 2017

The service was not consistently responsive.

Not all care records provided assurance that people received the care and support they should have received.

People were supported to participate in activities.

The service had a complaints procedure people and relatives could use to raise concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 October 2017

The service was well led.

The service was managed by a registered manager.

People’s views and experience were used to improve the service.

The were effective procedures for monitoring and assessing the quality of the service.