The George Brooker Care Society Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We found robust systems were in place which were effective in analysing incidents to drive improvements in the home. All staff were trained and encouraged to record any incidents that they witnessed in real time capturing what they had seen on the electronic recording system. All incidents were then reviewed by management and overseen by the senior management team to ensure actions were taken where needed to mitigate future risks. We found the provider was continuously learning from incidents and sharing lessons internally with the staff team and across the provider’s other services. This shared learning and reporting reduced the likelihood of recurrence of similar incidents.

Staff consistently described a culture where leaders encouraged development and reflection and used a range of audits including medicines, care plans, falls prevention, and infection control to identify themes and support improvements. A staff member commented, “We have our monthly meetings and discuss any concerns. Anything goes, we discuss this and some sort of preventative measurement in place. We also have our regular handover meeting and able to communicate through our digital app.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The service worked collaboratively with external professionals to ensure safe and well-coordinated admissions, as well as smooth transitions when people required hospital care.

Prior to admission into the home, an initial assessment was completed. Where possible, this was completed face to face in hospital or people’s own homes to help ensure that the provider could meet the person’s assessed needs and expectations. A relative told us, “[Person] had an appointed with the lead carer, and she recently took us through [person] care plan to make sure we had the right information.” This process provided reassurance to the family that their loved one was moving into a home where staff already had a clear understanding of their needs and personal preferences.

Care plans were formulated in more detail following detailed discussions with the person and their relatives or representatives. These personalised care plans included comprehensive information such as clinical needs, medicine requirements, past medical history, identified risks, allergies, communication preferences, and contact details for those important to the individual. Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated promptly when a person’s needs changed.

Staff supported people to appointments with records maintained of the outcome and follow up. Staff maintained regular contact and visits to people when admitted to hospital to provide reassurance, support and promote safe systems. Relatives told us they were informed if their family member was unwell. They confirmed staff always assisted their family members to appointments and they had regular reviews by the GP.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and to protect their right to live in safety, free from abuse, neglect, bullying, harassment and discrimination. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while responding appropriately to safeguarding concerns.

People were relaxed around staff and told us they felt safe living at The George Brooker Care Society Limited. Comments included: “I like it here because I feel safe and secure.” “Yes, I do feel safe and I am completely happy with the care.”

Relatives told us their observations of staff interacting with people gave them confidence their family members were being well looked after. A relative told us, “[Person] lived there for four years now. No worries, no complaints. [Person]’s really safe.”

Lessons learned from safeguarding concerns, incidents and near‑misses were routinely shared with staff. This supported continual improvement and reinforced a culture where protecting people from harm was understood as everyone’s responsibility.

Staff clearly understood their safeguarding roles and responsibilities. Information about safeguarding was easily accessible for both staff and residents, and discussions with people helped raise awareness and empower them to speak up. Staff received training that equipped them to recognise signs of abuse or neglect and respond quickly. The registered manager consistently reported concerns without delay to the local authority, ensuring timely reviews and actions to prevent future risks. This reflected a consistent safeguarding process that respected people’s human rights.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people were assessed and measures put in place to reduce them. These included risks associated with falls, pressure injury, nutrition and hydration. Where people were at risk of falls equipment was put in place to help reduce them, this included the use of crash mats at the side of beds and pressure sensor mats which alerted staff if a person was attempting to mobilise independently.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and risks to promote their safety. During the inspection, we observed staff providing support in line with people’s risk assessments, including providing appropriate supervision and support at mealtimes for people at risk of choking which helped keep people safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The service was clean, well maintained and adapted to meet people’s needs, with clear systems for monitoring safety and ensuring prompt action when issues arose.

The environment was safe, clean and suitable for people living in the home. Rooms were personalised with people’s belongings, supporting comfort and familiarity. Corridors were clear of obstruction, bathrooms were clean and cleaning staff were observed working throughout the day. Relatives told us the home is safe and well maintained. A relative said, “The whole place is really clean – redecorated last year.” Another relative said, “The whole building is very clean, the bathrooms are immaculate. It’s always homely and welcoming.”

The provider held up‑to‑date certificates for key safety systems, including gas safety, fixed electrical wiring, fire safety systems such as emergency lighting, alarms and extinguisher servicing, portable appliance testing (PAT), legionella testing and Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER) inspections for hoists and beds.

Records showed the local fire service had carried out an inspection, and the provider had acted on and completed all recommendations.

The kitchen was managed to a high standard of hygiene. The local authority food safety officer had awarded the home a five-star rating in 2024, the highest possible score, confirming that food hygiene standards were very good and fully compliant with legal requirements.

The registered manager and provider were responsive and supportive to equipment needs and acted promptly when staff identified the need for new or replacement equipment.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff were suitably inducted, trained, supervised and supported to carry out their roles safely and effectively. Records showed new staff received an induction and workbooks were signed off to demonstrate their competencies and completion of their induction. All staff had regular access to training the provider considered mandatory for the service and specialist training, to support them to have the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

Relatives told us staff seemed suitably trained and that several staff had worked there for a long time, which provided continuity of care. A relative commented, “Staff hasn’t really changed in the year that [person]’s been here. There always seem to be people around.” Another relative said, “The staff are amazing. They seem to cope with everything. Staff are really patient with [person].”

Staff were recruited safely, and records confirmed all required checks were completed. The recruitment process focused on selecting individuals with the right values and emotional intelligence, and staff described the experience as positive and supportive. Induction included shadowing, face-to-face training, and access to policies and procedures.

The provider had designated care champions within the staff team. Care champions are employees who act as advocates for specific areas of care, such as dementia, dignity or mental health. They provide guidance to colleagues, model best practice and support families, helping to ensure consistently high-quality, personalised care.

Care champions were established in key areas including nutrition, oral health and dementia. They actively promoted best practice, shared their knowledge with colleagues and contributed to continuous improvements in care delivery. This approach strengthened staff competence and helped to ensure people received informed, responsive and person-centred support.

We observed staff using their skills and knowledge effectively, providing calm, dignified, and person-centred care. People told us they felt safe, and relatives expressed confidence in the care provided. The provider demonstrated a commitment to training and development, ensuring staff had the skills and confidence to deliver high-quality, compassionate care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The service was clean, hygienic with systems in place to maintain a high standard of cleaning. The service had a cleaner. They had a cleaning schedule in place which outlined the areas to be cleaned daily. These were signed off when completed.

We found bathrooms, communal areas and bedrooms clean, tidy and free from odours. Floors were dementia‑friendly and well maintained, and equipment including call bells and hoists were clean and in working order. Weekly cleaning schedules were in place for commodes and were audited regularly. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available for staff, and this was used appropriately, including gloves and aprons.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were ordered, stored, and recorded safely using an electronic system, with contingency plans in place for system failure. Controlled drugs and supplements were stored securely in the medicines room, and medication fridges were monitored with temperature checks recorded and within safe limits.

Staff were trained and assessed as competent to manage and administer medicines. We saw that staff gave medicines to people in a caring and dignified manner. Medication was recorded on an electronic system, ‘EMAR’, enabling a record to be made in the daily log for each person on the Nourish system (a digital care management system). The service had a backup plan in case of technology failure, and this was evidenced with copies of printed-out drug records stored in clinical rooms.