• Care Home
  • Care home

Brooklyn House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

22-24 Nelson Road, Clacton On Sea, Essex, CO15 1LU (01255) 430324

Provided and run by:
Brooklyn Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 13 February 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 19 January 2021 and was unannounced.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 13 February 2021

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 remained good. We found some areas for improvement but at the time of the inspection there was no impact to people's safety. Where we have found this we have made a recommendation. Further details can be found in the main body of the report.

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. We have made a recommendations about how the service ensures that it continuously improves.

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 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.

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.

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.

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