Brook Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events.

Reporting processes were in place for accidents and incidents and the provider completed statutory notifications in line with legal requirements. The management had oversight of accidents and incidents and completed root cause analysis and lessons learned as part of their reflective practice and continual improvement of the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider worked well with other health and social care providers and feedback we received from external healthcare providers was positive. One healthcare professional told us, “I have no problem or concerns with Brook lodge, the staff are great as are the residents, everyone is approachable.”

The provider had systems and processes in place for the pre-assessment of people’s needs prior to their admission at Brook Lodge Care Home. Information was shared with staff to ensure people received consistency with their care and support. People and their relatives confirmed that assessments had taken place prior to admission.

People and their relatives told us that they had access to health care professionals when needed. Comments included, “The staff called the doctor when [person] became confused and doctor sorted things out” and “The optician has been in twice since [relative] has been here.”

The provider had safeguarding processes in place with policies and procedures to protect people from abuse. The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.

Staff received appropriate training to ensure they understood how to recognise the signs of potential abuse and their responsibilities to report any accidents, incidents or safeguarding concerns. We saw evidence of safeguarding being discussed in staff meeting minutes and the provider used case studies as learning tools for safeguarding and reflective practice.

Staff confirmed they had received safeguarding training and felt they were able to raise any concerns. We observed positive interactions between staff and people during our visit and people were able to come and go around the service as they wanted to.

People and their relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns if they needed to. Comments included, “If I had any concerns, would speak to shift co-ordinator or senior” and “We do feel safe for the most part, staff great, safe environment, no concerns, if any concerns speak to senior on duty or care home manager.”

The provider did not always work with people to understand and manage risk. For example, one care plan we reviewed did not have sufficient information around all the person’s health needs such as epilepsy. The provider has since updated the care plan and risk assessments to reflect all their needs.

Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. We found care plans were person centred. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences.

We reviewed care plans and risk assessments during our assessment of Brook Lodge Care Home. Regular reviews were being carried out and the provider used a ‘resident of the day’ system to review care plans.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff had been trained in fire safety and had fire marshal training as well as health and safety training. Fire drills were also being carried out regularly.

Risk assessments were routinely conducted to evaluate the safety of the environment and ensure staff could support individuals safely and effectively. These assessments included checks to confirm that equipment was in good working order, and that any concerns regarding equipment or environmental hazards were promptly reported and addressed. Regular audits were also carried out to monitor and maintain safety standards, helping to create a secure and supportive setting for both staff and the people receiving care.

The provider made sure the staff team were qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development.

However, people told us the providers rota system did not always ensure sufficient staffing levels at Brook Lodge Care Home. We received mixed feedback regarding staffing levels. Comments included, “Some days there seems to be more staff than others” and “There doesn’t seem to be enough staff at weekends.” However, other comments included, “There is enough staff, I visit different days, morning and evening” and “Always staff there, visit various days.” Staff also gave us mixed feedback regarding staffing levels. Comments included, “Sometimes there is enough staff, other times no” and “We’re normally alright, do try to cover any sick leave.”

We observed enough care staff supporting people at Brook Lodge. Staff knew the people well and we observed people and staff were comfortable in each other’s company. People and their relatives told us that they felt staff were appropriately trained with using equipment. One person told us, “A few occasions I have seen staff using equipment and feel they are capable.”

We reviewed training records and found staff had received appropriate training and been inducted into their roles. Staff told us they received regular training and support and that the induction was good. Comments included, “Induction and training were good. It was face to face. Having somebody talk to you rather than just being delivered online made it better.”

The provider had robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure the required checks were carried out prior to staff commencing their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had systems in place to monitor cleanliness of the home and all staff received infection prevention control (IPC) training. Staff were practicing good IPC in their tasks. We observed correct handwashing and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The environment and equipment were clean and well maintained. Staff supported people to maintain their personal hygiene well.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the cleanliness of the home. Comments included, “Spotless, no concerns regarding maintenance, if taking someone to toilet see staff putting on gloves etc” and “Room is very clean, done when at lunch, and smells nice.”

There were systems and processes in place for the management and administration of people’s medicines. However, we did find some discrepancies with stock of medicines. This meant the provider could not always be sure that people received their medicines in accordance with their prescribers’ instructions. We fed this back to the provider and they have since completed an internal investigation and confirmed findings and actions taken to resolve the discrepancies.

Feedback from people and their relatives around medication administration was mostly positive. One relative told us of a concern they had regarding a discrepancy with a medication which we discussed with the provider. The provider was able to explain what had happened and actions taken to resolve this.

Medicines were stored securely and controlled drugs protocols were being followed accordingly. Daily temperatures of the fridge were taken and recorded to ensure the fridge remained at a safe temperature.

Staff had received the appropriate training to support people with their medicines and annual competencies had been completed for all staff who administer medication. The provider had a medication policy and audits in place including weekly and monthly medication audits.