We carried out a review of the data available to us about Brinsworth House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Brinsworth House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
¿ Even prior to the local area entering high alert level restrictions, no visitors were being admitted to the home with window visits facilitated instead.
¿ Where people were in isolation, barrier nursing procedures were effectively implemented. Staff cared for people, who were isolating, in a safe way and limited the risk of the spread of infection.
¿ People were required to isolate in their rooms for five days following routine hospital appointments. Where people attended hospital in an emergency, they were required to isolate for 14 days on returning to the home.
¿ The home was engaged in the ‘whole home’ testing programme. People living in the home were tested for coronavirus on a monthly basis and staff were tested weekly. Antibody testing for staff had also commenced at the time of our inspection.
¿ The service had appropriate infection control policies and procedures in place. The provider/registered manager had kept up to date with government guidance and communicated changes to staff promptly.
¿ People benefitted from a long standing and stable staff team. Staff were well-supported and there was a strong focus on wellbeing and on sharing relevant and up to date information in a timely manner.
Brinsworth House is a care home, providing personal care and nursing care to 37 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 38 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People continued to be protected against the risk of abuse, as staff members received on-going safeguarding training and were aware of the provider’s safeguarding policy. Risk management plans in place gave staff guidance on how to mitigate identified risks. People’s medicines were managed in line with good practice. Sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed to keep people safe.
People were supported by staff that underwent comprehensive training to enhance their skills and knowledge. People continued to access food and drink that met their dietary needs and requirements. People were supported to access healthcare professional services to monitor and maintain their health and well-being. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were treated with kindness and compassion and were encouraged to make decisions about their care. People were encouraged to maintain their independence where possible and safe to do so. Staff spoke about people they supported respectfully.
Care plans were not as person-centred as they could be, however the provider addressed this during the inspection. The provider encouraged people to participate in a wide range of activities that reflected their preferences and met their social needs. People were aware of how to raise a concern. People’s end of life care wishes were documented.
We received mixed reviews regarding the management of the service. Despite this, the majority of people confirmed the registered manager was approachable and available to them. Audits were carried out regularly and issues identified were acted on in a timely manner. People’s views were sought through regular house meetings and questionnaires. The registered manager actively sought partnership working to drive improvements.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 15 September 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Brinsworth House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
EABF (known and referred to in this report as Brinsworth House) provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 36 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is a Victorian listed building with extensions at the rear of the property. Accommodation is arranged over two floors and there is a passenger lift to assist people to get to the upper floor. There were 33 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.
The last inspection of Brinsworth House took place in November 2014 when we found two breaches of regulations relating to consent to care and treatment and management of medicines. After the inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements.
At this inspection we found the provider had followed their action plan and improvements had been made in the required areas.
The home had a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their relatives were positive about the care and support provided. Staff knew people well and treated them in a kind and dignified manner. We observed positive relationships between staff and people at the service throughout our visits. A wide range of activities were provided for people to participate in both in and outside of the home.
Staff told us they received the support and training to care effectively for people and meet their needs. They had received training around safeguarding vulnerable people and knew what action to take if they had or received a concern. They were confident that any concerns raised would be taken seriously by the registered manager and acted upon.
People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. Improved arrangements were in place for the recording, safekeeping and administration of medicines.
We also found improvements had been made so that the service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people no longer had the capacity to consent to aspects of their care, we saw the registered manager and staff worked in people’s best interests. Assessments were completed to document the decision making process involving family and medical professionals as appropriate.
Healthwatch Richmond visited in June 2016 reporting that Brinsworth House was a well-run home with good systems in place to care for the residents and that these worked to a high standard. They observed good practice throughout their visit commenting there was a welcoming atmosphere with good interaction between the staff and residents.
This was an unannounced inspection, carried out over two days on 5 and 6 November 2014.
EABF (also known as Brinsworth House) provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 36 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is a Victorian listed building with extensions at the rear of the property. Accommodation is arranged over two floors and there is a passenger lift to assist people to get to the upper floor. There were 28 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.
We last inspected EABF in August 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the essential standards that we assessed.
The service had 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.
People using the service told us they liked living at EABF and felt safe there. They said that there were enough staff on duty who were caring, respectful and upheld their individual privacy and dignity.
Improvements had been made around activity and occupation since our previous inspection with a full time co-ordinator now in post. We saw that a structured programme of activities had been introduced and work was on-going to personalise this to each person living at EABF.
Care staff provided appropriate support to help people eat and drink. People receiving assistance were given information about what they were eating and staff checked with individuals if they had enough to eat. Feedback was however mixed about the quality of food provided. The registered manager was already aware of the issues raised and had taken action to start making improvements.
New staff completed induction training when they first came to work at EABF. Further training was then made available to them to make sure their skills and knowledge were kept up to date. Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the safety or welfare of a person using the service and were confident in being able to report these to senior staff.
Medicines were stored securely and safely however safe practice was not being followed consistently when giving them to people and keeping up to date accurate administration records. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report .
We found that further work was required to ensure that the provider consistently acted in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The assessments of capacity seen showed a lack of understanding and application of the Act in protecting people who may not be able to make decisions for themselves. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
There were processes in place to gather the views of people using the service, staff and visiting professionals about the quality of service provided. A review carried out in mid-2014 had resulted in changes to staff contracts, shift rotas and senior management structures. We saw that this had impacted on everyone in the home with new systems and staff roles being introduced at EABF.
Overall comments from people using the service included "fabulous, such a friendly atmosphere", "In general very good here", "I'm lucky to be here" and "what I like about it here is that it is informal".
People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect by care staff who were described as "helpful", "friendly" and "all super".
The majority of people spoken to felt that there could be more things going on to occupy them each day and the provider had already taken steps towards employing a dedicated member of staff to co-ordinate this provision. This may be particularly important for people with higher nursing needs and individuals living with dementia who may require more intensive interactions.
The home should continue to encourage staff to focus on wellbeing and quality of life through practice that is person centred and not task orientated in approach. Focus needs to be on what people can do and making each day different. Work could also take place to further improve the mealtime experience for people using the service.
The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience. These are people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective.
We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
Overall people made positive comments about the home and the care and support they received. Comments included 'I've been living in the home for a year. It has a very friendly atmosphere', 'very comfortable' and 'the people here are willing to do things to help you'.
One person said 'I always tell people that it is rather like a boarding house at St Anne's-on-Sea but with medical attention'.
People living at Brinsworth House are members of the entertainment industry or their dependents. We met some of the people living at the home, visitors and staff. Everyone we spoke to was very positive about their experiences. People living at the home told us that the staff were kind and caring and that their needs were met. They told us that they liked the environment, food and activities. The staff said that they were appropriately supported and that they enjoyed working at the home. Visitors were well informed and said that they were always made welcome.