You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 January 2018

Brooklyn House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premise and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Brooklyn House accommodates up to 17 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection 15 people were using the service.

This inspection took place on 20 November 2017. The inspection was unannounced, this meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting. At the last inspection on 4 March 2015 the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found that overall the service required improvement. This is the first time the service has been rated requires improvement.

Quality assurance systems were in place to identify areas for improvement but people’s views about what improvements needed to be made was not included. Action plans specifying what action would be taken and by when were not in place. We found one example, of the registered manager not notifying the commission about an event that had taken place at the service.

Following the inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; Safe, Responsive and Well led to achieve a rating of good.

The registered manager did not have a way of assessing how many staff were needed, and at the busiest time of the day there was not always enough staff available. We have made a recommendation about safe staffing levels.

Risk assessments were in place and covered most areas, however when people were at risk of choking or had bed rails in place, the risk assessment did not contain sufficient detail for staff to understand how to care for these people safely. We have made a recommendation about completing comprehensive risk assessments.

Checks were carried out on staff before they started work with people to assess their suitability to care for vulnerable people. Staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm.

The service did not actively identify the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss, and no one at the service had been trained in how to do this. We have made a recommendation about staff training and development.

Regular staff meetings had taken place, but only one meeting had been held with people to seek their views regarding their care and support. We have made a recommendation about holding regular staff meetings.

There was 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.

Staff received regular supervision and had been trained to meet people’s needs. People were supported to have control of their day to day lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Arrangements were made for people to see a GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. People had access to the food and drink they chose, when they wanted it.

People were cared for and supported by staff that understood their needs and knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs regarding equality, diversity and human rights. The care and support people received was individual.

There was a clear management structure in place. The manager and other senior staff were well liked and respected by people and staff.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 January 2018

The service was not always safe.

At key times of the day, there were not enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Risk assessments were in place but some of these needed to be more detailed and look at the risks posed to people who used bed rails or who were at risk of choking.

Staff were trained to give people their medicines in a safe way.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 January 2018

The service remains effective.

Staff were appropriately trained to meet people’s needs.

The dining experience for people was positive and people were supported to have adequate food and drinks.

People’s healthcare needs were met and people were supported to have access to a variety of healthcare professionals and services.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 January 2018

The service remains caring.

People and their relatives were positive about the care and support provided.

Staff were friendly, kind and caring towards the people they supported and had a good understanding and awareness of how to treat people with respect and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 January 2018

The service was not always responsive.

The service wasn’t actively identifying the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss.

Complaints management was robust and people using the service and those acting on their behalf felt confident to raise concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 January 2018

The service was not always well led.

People’s views were not an integral part of the quality assurance process.

The registered manager did not notify the commission about an event that had taken place at the service.

The provider had made key links with organisations and looked at ways they would keep informed of best practice.