Brookfield Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At the last assessment this key question was rated good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Staff were kind and caring and promoted people’s rights and independence.

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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff knew people well and we observed some kind, warm and caring interactions. Staff referred to people by name and knew their likes and dislikes. We saw staff taking time with a person to ensure they were offered a drink in leisurely way, whilst chatting with them about the day ahead. There was an inclusive atmosphere and relatives and visitors were welcomed.

However, 2 of the communal lounges had doors at either end and there was a high level of staff traffic walking through the middle of the rooms, including staff with large laundry trollies and maintenance workers. There were lots of missed opportunities to interact with people. The provider told us there were amendments planed to the layout of 2 lounges, including an extension to the conservatory area. WeMost people and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. Comments included, “The personal care here is very good and [name of staff member] showers me just how I like it.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were supported by a core staff team who knew them well. People had access to a keyworker, which meant they, and their families, had a named contact who knew them well. People appeared well groomed and cared for. People could choose where they wished to sit and there was a good choice of meals and snacks. We received positive feedback about the quality of meals and the dining experience. We saw staff talking with people about what meals they would like. Care records highlighted some information about people’s backgrounds, including their culture and family relationships. We received mixed feedback about the activities available to people. There was an activities coordinator employed who coordinated an activity programme, which included spending one to one time with people cared for in bed. Some people accessed the local on-site club to attend social groups to knit or play board games. Staff spoke positively about their role. Comments included, “I love coming to work, it is not like work. The residents are like my second family.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People’s rights and independence were promoted. We saw a staff member supporting a person to mobilise. They had recently been unwell, but they encouraged them to take a few steps with their support and then recognised they needed to revert to using a wheelchair. There were regular meetings with people to ensure their views and wishes were listened to. Staff spoke warmly about people and told us about examples where they promoted their independence and encouraged them to make choices. Comments included, “It is all individual. Some people can do more than others. We always make sure they have choices and ask them and show them.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Most people and relatives told us staff were responsive. People had access to call bells and records showed most response times were good. However, not everybody could use a call bell and we saw there was often not a presence in the communal areas, which meant staff may not be aware when a person needed support.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt very well supported and their wellbeing was actively promoted. They received good support from the provider and the management team. Staff were supported to take on champion roles, which included extra training, support and time to share their knowledge with the staff team. Managers had mental health first aid and counselling training to equip them to be able to actively support staff’ wellbeing.