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 carried out on 4th March 2015

During a routine inspection

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.