You are here

Archived: Brooklyn House

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 August 2013
Date of Publication: 23 August 2013
Inspection Report published 23 August 2013 PDF | 77.67 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 2 August 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. We looked at the care records for three people during our inspection. These showed us that an assessment of the person’s needs was carried out and their care plans were developed from the information gathered through the assessment process. We saw care plans relating to nutrition, personal care, moving and handling, falls, hobbies and interests, continence and mental health.

Care plans were well organised and the information was clear. They recorded what the person could do for themselves and identified areas where the person required support. The care plans had sufficient detail to ensure staff were able to provide care consistently. A relative who completed a survey as part of the home’s quality monitoring process was complimentary about how the staff provided care and support. They said: "Everyone at Brooklyn is pleasant and helpful at all times and in all circumstances.”

There were risk assessments in place which identified the risks for the individual and how these could be reduced or managed. We saw risk assessments relating to falls, malnutrition, pain and pressure areas.

The care plans identified any health issues and people were referred to health professionals according to their individual needs. We saw evidence of input from district nursing services, doctors, opticians and the memory monitoring clinic. Relatives told us that their loved one’s health needs were well met. They explained that their relative was cared for in bed but had no problems with pressure areas because staff were attentive to their relative’s needs and regularly changed their position in the bed.

We saw from people's care records that they had a preferred priorities for care (PPC) document in place. The PPC was compiled with input from community nursing services and recorded the person's preferences about how and where they wished to be cared for should they become ill. This ensured that people's wishes were carried out if their health deteriorated and they were unable to communicate.

The atmosphere throughout the home was relaxed and we saw that staff took time to talk to people. Activities were centred on the individual and what the person preferred to do.

A relative who completed a survey as part of the home’s quality monitoring process said: “I am pleased that the staff communicate with the residents as individuals and acknowledge individual needs.”

We saw that people were relaxed and appeared happy. Someone who lived in the home who had completed a survey as part of the home’s quality monitoring system said: “I get the help I need with my walking frame. I am quite content.” Relatives were also very positive about the lifestyle in Brooklyn House and complimentary about the food. They told us: “Everything is cooked fresh and home-made.” At lunchtime we saw someone who was unable to eat independently being supported to eat. The member of staff followed good practices; they sat beside the person, spoke with them and gave them sufficient time to eat.

These processes showed us that people received care and support according to their individual needs and preferences.