We carried out a review of the data available to us about Brookside Residential Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Brookside Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
At the time of the inspection there were strict rules in place throughout England relating to social restrictions and shielding practices. These were commonly known as the 'national lockdown - stay at home policy'. This meant the Covid-19 alert level was high and there were tighter restrictions in place affecting the whole community.
We found the following examples of good practice:
The provider and registered manager had comprehensive processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection. All authorised visitors were appropriately checked at the door of the home to make sure they were safe to enter. The service used innovative methods to control the spread of viruses from people's footwear.
There was regular laboratory testing of staff and people living in the home. In addition, staff had to perform a 'rapid test' at the start of every shift. These measures provided, as much as was practical, protection against the spread of infection.
Hand sanitiser and personal protective equipment (PPE) were available throughout the home. There were signs to remind staff, visitors and people about the use of PPE, the importance of washing hands, regular use of hand sanitisers and appropriate social distancing.
Where appropriate, ‘socially-distanced' visits had been taking place before the inspection. There was a visiting area that had been created near an entrance to the home. The registered manager told us visiting facilities had recently been extended consistent with latest national guidance for care homes. This allowed one person, appropriately protected, to visit their loved one inside the home.
Infection control policy and people's risk assessments had been considered and revised following the pandemic so that people were protected in the event of becoming unwell or in the event of a Covid-19 outbreak in the home. The registered manager and their deputy kept up to date with latest national advice and local guidance.
The provider and registered manager insisted people were tested before admission. They also had to shield from others on admission to the home. We were satisfied the service, staff, people and visitors were following the rules.
People's mental wellbeing had been promoted by innovative use of social media and electronic tablets so people could contact their relatives and friends. Where required, staff supported people with this technology.
The home was clean and hygienic. We spoke with a cleaner during the inspection and they had good knowledge around the risks involved with Covid-19 and the spread of infection. They also knew how to 'deep-clean' areas, including people's bedrooms, when there were elevated risks that required additional measures.
Staff also had comprehensive knowledge of infection prevention, access to good practice guidance and had attended Covid-19 specialist training hosted by the local authority. Refreshers and updates had been provided on an 'in-house' basis and this was supervised by the registered manager or the deputy. We noted all of this followed best practice and the latest guidance. There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support and ensure safeguards were in place should there be a staff shortage.
If required, staff could receive Covid-19 related supervision and had access to appropriate support to manage their wellbeing. It was clear the registered manager and their deputy had a good understanding and knowledge of the staff team.
The provider and registered manager encouraged and supported residents and staff appropriately around taking up the Covid-19 vaccines. This programme had been rolled out shortly before the inspection.
Brookside Care Home is a residential ‘care home’ which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 25 older people, including people living with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of the inspection there were 23people living at the home.
Rooms were located over two floors and there was an accessible lift available to use. There was a lounge and two dining rooms on the ground floor and all rooms had wheelchair access. All rooms were single occupancy and 22 room had en-suite facilities. There was also adapted toilet and bathroom facilities on both the ground and first floor.
At the last inspection, which took place in January 2016 the service was rated ‘Good’.
At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and continued to meet all of the essential standards that we assessed.
There was a registered manager at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is 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. .
We reviewed quality assurance tools which were in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the home. There was a variety of different audits and checks conducted which meant that people remained safe. Although monthly medication audits were being routinely completed, we did identify a number of weekly medication audits that had not been completed and an infection control audit which was slightly of date.
We recommend that the registered provider review quality assurance systems currently in place.
We reviewed care plans and risk assessments and found that they contained up to date and relevant information in relation to the support needs of people who were living at the home.
Medication systems and processes were safely in place and people were only administered their medication by staff who were suitably training and competent to do so.
Recruitment was safely managed. Suitable checks were carried out on all staff before they began working at Brookside care home.
Infection prevention control procedures were in place. The home was clean, hygienic and odour free. There was an infection control policy in place and staff understood the importance of complying with this policy to keep people safe and free from avoidable harm.
Safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures were in place. Staff explained their understanding of what ‘safeguarding’ and 'whistleblowing' meant and the actions they would take to safeguard people in their care.
The home operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We reviewed information in relation to capacity assessments and processes which needed to be in place to make decisions in a person’s best interest.
Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and received training, learning and development opportunities. Staff also received regular supervision and appraisals.
People’s nutrition and hydration support needs were checked during the inspection. People received an effective level of support from the staff team and external healthcare professionals who were involved in people’s care.
We received positive feedback from people and relatives about ‘care’ that was delivered. People received kind, warm and compassionate care by staff who were familiar with their needs and were respectful of their wishes and preferences.
There was an activities co-ordinator in post who arranged a variety of different activities for people to participate in. An activities time-table was visible on the notice board in the reception area and we received positive feedback about the range of different internal and external activities which people were encouraged to participate in.
The registered provider had a formal complaints policy in place and people were aware of the complaints procedure. Any complaints which were received, were responded to in accordance with organisational procedures.
The was a range of different policies in place. We identified that some of the policies needed to be updated with the relevant Health and Social Care Act information. Staff were familiar with a range of different policies which were in place and understood the importance of complying with these.
We carried out an unannounced inspection of Brookside Residential Care Home on 5 and 6 January 2016.
Brookside Residential Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 25 older people, including people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 25 people living at the service.
Bedrooms are located over two floors and a lift is available. There is a lounge and two dining rooms on the ground floor and all rooms have wheelchair access. All rooms are single occupancy and twenty two have ensuite facilities. There are also suitably equipped toilet and bathroom facilities on each floor.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager at the service who had been in post since 2012. 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.
At our last inspection in February 2014, we asked the provider to make improvements to the safety of the premises. The provider sent us an action plan detailing the improvements that had been made. During this inspection we found that the provider had followed their plan and legal requirements were being met.
The people we spoke with at the home told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I always feel safe here. I’m never worried”.
We saw evidence that staff had been recruited safely and the staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse and what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.
People were happy with the staffing levels at the service and we found that staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs.
There were appropriate policies and procedures in place for managing medicines and people told us they received their medicines when they needed them.
People were happy with the care provided at the home. One person told us, “It’s homely here and I’m well looked after”.
We found that staff were well supported. They received an appropriate induction, regular supervision and could access training when they needed it. They told us communication between staff at the service was good.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and the service had taken appropriate action where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care.
People told us they were involved in decisions about their care. We saw evidence that where people lacked the mental capacity to make such decisions, their relatives were consulted.
Everyone we spoke with was happy with the food at the home and we noted that people were supported appropriately with their nutritional needs.
People were supported with their healthcare needs and were referred appropriately to a variety of health care services. A visiting community staff nurse and a healthcare assistant from a local pharmacy were happy with the care being provided at the service.
The people we spoke with told us the staff at the service were caring and we saw staff treating people with kindness, affection and respect.
People and their relatives told us staff respected their privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be independent.
We observed that people’s needs were responded to in a timely manner and saw evidence that their needs were reviewed regularly.
A variety of activities were provided and people were encouraged to take part.
We saw evidence that the registered manager requested feedback about the service from the people living there, their relatives and from staff.
People living at the home and their relatives told us they felt the service was well managed and they felt able to raise any concerns.
We saw that the service had a clear philosophy of care which focused on the importance of people’s rights, privacy, confidentiality and dignity.
The staff and the registered manager communicated with people, their visitors and each other in a polite and respectful manner.
The registered manager and staff had a caring and compassionate approach towards the people living at the service and the people we spoke with told us they were approachable.
We saw evidence that a variety of audits were completed regularly by the registered manager and the service provider and were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of care and safety at the home were achieved and maintained.
We observed that staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and their individual preferences. People told us there was always staff around to attend to their needs. One person said, 'They are always there when I need them.'
People told us that they were quick to receive medical attention if they needed it. The health professionals we spoke to during our visit spoke highly of the care provided at Brookside and said that timely referrals were made.
The people who lived at Brookside and the relatives we spoke to were pleased with the home environment. One friend of a person living at Brookside told us, 'It may not be the most modern here but that is a good thing. It is homely and welcoming and (name of friend) is happy here which is the most important thing.'
We found there were concerns regarding the security of the home. The front door was left unlocked during the day which meant the safety of people living in the home could be compromised.
People's views were sought with regards to the provision of the service and we saw that steps had been taken to respond appropriately.
People told us they were happy with the care and support they received. Comments included, 'I like it here; they look after me properly' and 'I am treated very well'. People told us they had no complaints about the service but would be happy to raise any concerns with staff or the manager.
We were concerned some areas in the home needed attention. However following a discussion with the owner we were confident work to improve the home was underway. People living in the home told us, 'I have a lovely room; it's nice and bright' and 'It is a very homely and comfortable home'.
People were happy with the staff team. One person said, 'The staff are lovely'. Staff told us they were happy working at the home. One member of staff said, 'There have been lots of changes for the better'.