You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out checks at Brooklyn House using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

The inspection took place on 04 March 2015 and was unannounced. Brooklyn House provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to 17 people, some who may have a mental health need. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people who lived in the service.

The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Health and social care professionals we spoke with were all positive in their comments about the support provided to people at Brooklyn House.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLS and associated Codes of Practice. The Act, Safeguards and Codes of Practice are in place to protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there is a need for restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed and decided by appropriately trained professionals.

The service had appropriate systems in place to keep people safe, and staff followed these guidelines when they supported people. Staff were aware of people’s individual risks and were able to tell us about the arrangements in place to manage these safely. There were sufficient numbers of care staff available to meet people’s care needs and people received their medication as prescribed and on time. The provider had a robust recruitment process in place to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm.

People’s health care needs were assessed appropriately and care was planned and delivered to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. People were provided with sufficient quantities to eat and drink and their nutritional needs were met. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Care plans reflected people’s care and support requirements accurately and people’s healthcare needs were well managed. Staff interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner, and were skilled at responding to people’s non-verbal requests promptly and had a detailed understanding of people’s individual care and support needs.

People were supported to follow their own chosen hobbies and interests and encouraged to take part in activities that interested them and were supported to maintain contacts with the local community so that they could enjoy social activities outside the service. There were systems in place to manage concerns and complaints. There was an open culture and the manager and staff provided people with opportunities to express their concerns and did what they were able to reduce people’s anxiety. People understood how to raise a concern and were confident that actions would be taken to address their concerns.

The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement and appropriate action to address any identified concerns. Audits completed by the provider and registered manager and subsequent actions had resulted in improvements in the service. Systems were in place to gain the views of people, their relatives and health or social care professionals. This feedback was used to make improvements and develop the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

The service was safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.

People had their prescribed medicines administered safely.

People were safe because staff were only recruited and then employed by the service after all essential pre-employment checks had been satisfactorily completed.

Staffing levels were flexible and organised according to people’s individual needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

The service was effective.

The provider ensured that people’s needs were met by staff with the right skills and knowledge. Staff had up to date training, supervision and opportunities for professional development.

People’s preferences and opinions were respected and where appropriate advocacy support was provided.

People were cared for staff who knew them well. People had their nutritional needs met and where appropriate expert advice was sought.

Staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and how this Act applied to people in the service.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

The service was caring.

Staff had a positive, supportive and enabling approach to the care they provided for people.

People were supported to see friends, relatives or their advocates whenever they wanted. Care was provided with compassion based upon people’s known needs.

People’s dignity was respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

The service was responsive.

People had access to a wide range of personalised, meaningful activities which included access to the local community. People were encouraged to build and maintain links with the local community.

People were supported to make choices about how they spent their time and pursued their interests.

Appropriate systems were in place to manage complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 June 2015

The service was well-led.

The registered manager supported staff at all times and was a visible presence in the service.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager and staff team shared the values and goals of the service in meeting a high standard of care.

The service had an effective quality assurance system. The quality of the service provided was monitored regularly and people were asked for their views.