You are here

Archived: Brockley Court Home

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 December 2011
Date of Publication: 5 January 2012
Inspection Report published 5 January 2012 PDF | 53.91 KB

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 12/12/2011, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

People living in the home are treated with respect and are supported to make decisions about their care, treatment and support. However the way that staff performs some tasks does not treat people in a dignified manner.

Overall, we found that Brockley Court was meeting this essential standard but, to maintain this, we have suggested that some improvements are made.

User experience

Because of their dementia or mental health needs, most of the people we spoke with were unable to tell us whether they were involved in deciding how they were looked after. They were able to make some comments. “I like to walk down to the gate every morning”, “I like to sit in this lounge chair so I can see what is going on” and “I am OK with the way I am looked after”.

Staff told us about the way they supported one person to meet their specific dietary requirements. We found that members of staff knew the people living in the home and were aware of their different needs, and the way they liked to be looked after.

As part of this review we undertook a SOFI exercise (short observational framework inspection). We sat in the lounge for a short period of time and observed people being supported to have their midday meal, and interacting with the staff who were helping them. Some people were managing to eat their meals independently, some were being regularly prompted to eat, and others were being supported by staff to eat. We found that the interactions between staff and people in the room were positive and friendly. However, after the meal staff started to help people clean food debris from their faces, hands and clothes. They used the same bowl of soapy water, same flannel and towel for each person they supported. We discussed this with the manager, who had been in the room at the time. Although it was good to see that people’s dignity after mealtimes was being maintained, there needs to be a more acceptable method used.

Other evidence

We looked at the assessment methods that were used to identify people needs and ensure they received the care and support they needed. Very thorough care needs assessments had been carried out for each person and it was evident that these had been based upon information known about people, and knowledge of the way they knew people liked to be looked after. We saw the assessment documentation for one person who had not lived in the home for long. The manager told us that information had been added to the initial assessment made when the person moved in four weeks previously. This shows that the staff wanted to ensure that the person received the support they wanted and in the way they wanted.