You are here

Brockholes Brow - Preston Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 September 2018

The inspection took place on 19 July and 7 August 2018 and was unannounced.

The last inspection of this service took place in August 2016 when we found the provider was not meeting the requirements of Regulation 9 : Person-centred care of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because people and their representatives were not always involved in reviews of their care. The service had also failed to notify us of the events as required by law. The service had been rated as Requires Improvement and submitted an action plan to demonstrate how they would address these shortfalls.

Brockholes Brow - Preston (Brockholes Brow) provides accommodation for up to 34 people who are deaf and have a range of learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and/or mental health problems. There are four separate houses, one being for people needing intensive one to one care. All rooms are of single occupancy and there is a communal lounge, kitchen and dining room in each of the four houses.

The home had a newly appointed manager who had applied for registration with CQC to be the 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We checked the action plan sent in after the last inspection and found that the service was now meeting the regulations.

Plans of care were based around the individual preferences of people as well as their medical needs. We saw how people and their representatives were involved in reviews of their care, to ensure it was of a good standard and meeting the person's needs.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with respect. We observed many positive and caring interactions throughout the inspection. Staff knew people's likes and dislikes which helped them provide individualised care for people.

The provider used a robust recruitment procedure which ensured people received support from staff vetted as suitable to work with vulnerable people. People were involved and contributed to the recruitment process of potential staff. All staff used British Sign Language (BSL) and deaf staff were recruited as much as possible to act as positive role models. This had included the recent appointment of the new manager. Staff were skilled in communications including BSL, to maximise engagement with people.

A number of new staff had recently started work and the senior management team had under gone a restructure. Staff and people in the home told us they were feeling very positive about these changes.

People were safe living at the home because they were supported by a sufficient number of staff who had the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff understood their responsibilities with regard to reporting suspected abuse, in order to safeguard people.

The service had ensured risks to individuals had been assessed and measures put in place to minimise such risks. A comprehensive plan was in place in case of emergencies which included detail about how each person should be supported in the event of an evacuation.

Staff received induction and on-going training to enable them to meet the needs of people they supported effectively. Staff were supported by way of regular supervision, appraisal and access to management.

Effective systems were in place to ensure people's medicines were managed safely. Only trained staff were allowed to administer medicines.

We have made a recommendation that the provider ensures that the records for administration of 'as and when' medications (PRN) include written protocols for their use.

People’s rights were protected. The registered manager was knowledgeable about their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People wer

Inspection areas



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was safe and the rating for this domain had improved to Good

Prescribed medicines were managed safely and stored safely. We recommended instructions for the use of PRN medications should be clarified.

All the required checks of suitability had been completed when staff had been employed.

People were kept safe and there were sufficient staff to meet people�s needs.

Risk to people and the environment were well managed.



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was effective.

Care plans and records showed that people were seen by appropriate professionals, when required, to meet their physical and mental health needs.

The manager was knowledgeable about how to ensure individuals� rights were protected.

Staff had received training suitable to their role and responsibility.

People said they enjoyed the meals provided and appropriate assessments relating to nutritional requirements had been made.



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was Caring.

Staff treated people kindly and provided support sensitively. Being able to communicate with people had a high priority in the service.

People were supported in a way that promoted their welfare and wellbeing.

People made choices about their lives and their independence and dignity were protected and actively promoted by staff in the home. People therefore received support that made a positive difference to their lives.



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was responsive and the rating for this domain had improved to Good

Care plans provided detailed and comprehensive information to staff about people�s care needs, their likes, dislikes and preferences. People were involved in the development and review of their care plans.

Staff understood the concept of person-centred care and put this into practice when supporting people.

There was a wide range of individualised activities on offer at the home. People were also encouraged to pursue their own hobbies or interests, within the home and in the wider community.

We saw that accessible information was available to show people how to raise complaints.



Updated 14 September 2018

The service was well-led and the rating for this domain had improved to Good.

The service was being well-led by the new manager. Staff morale had improved and staff and people in the home were positive about the new senior team.

We found a positive, caring culture at the home and staff knew the requirements of their roles and responsibilities.

Incidents and notifiable events had been reported to CQC.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included regular audits, meetings and feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. Action had been taken, or was planned, where the need for improvement was identified.