You are here

Brockholes Brow - Preston Inadequate

We are carrying out a review of quality at Brockholes Brow - Preston. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 June 2021

About the service

Brockholes Brow - Preston (Brockholes Brow) is a small community for adults who live with deafness, learning disabilities and mental health needs. The service is registered to provide a combination of accommodation and personal care for up to 34 people. The service comprises of four linked houses with shared and some single occupancy. The service is also registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. There were 27 people using the residential service and 10 people using the domiciliary care service at the time of our inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe and staff were kind and caring. However, our observations and findings showed that people did not always receive safe care and treatment. While safeguarding protocols were in place, they had not always been followed to report repeated falls and repeated incidents of self-harm. Risks to people were not adequately assessed and reviewed or used to make effective decisions on people’s care. People at risk of unintentional weight loss had not been adequately monitored to reduce deterioration. People were not supported by suitably qualified staff to reduce risks of harm. Some parts of the premises were in a state of disrepair and infection prevention practices had not been adequately implemented in line with COVID-19 guidance. We were not assured by measures in place. The provider had not followed national COVID-19 guidance to facilitate people to receive family visitors. We observed people received their medicines safely. However, we found shortfalls in medicines management practices and record-keeping.

People were not always supported by staff who had the right skills and knowledge. Staff and the registered manager had not received training to meet the specialist needs of people they supported. People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff had not always supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service did not always support the provision of care in the least restrictive practices and there was a lack of awareness on promoting decision making. People told us staff sought their preferences and referred them to advocates. Staff supported people to have access to health professionals and specialist support, however this was not consistent. Improvements were required to ensure people offered a variety of choice on their daily meals.

Right support:

¿ Model of care and setting maximises people’s choice, control and independence

Right care:

¿ Care is person-centred and promotes people’s dignity, privacy and human rights

Right culture:

¿ Ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensure people using services lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right Support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.

This service was not able to demonstrate how they were meeting some of the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture.

The campus style model of service delivery offered to people at this setting does not meet current best practice. It is known that in large campus style environments that truly person-centred care which promotes people having meaningful lives where they have control, choice and independence is difficult to achieve. How the provider can modernise the service will be discussed following this inspection.

People told us staff were kind and caring and we observed some caring interactions between staff and people. However, practic

Inspection areas



Updated 11 June 2021

The service was not safe

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 11 June 2021

The service was not effective.

Details are in our effective findings below


Requires improvement

Updated 11 June 2021

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 June 2021

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below



Updated 11 June 2021

The service was not well-led

Details are in our well-led findings below.