• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Brooker Care Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2nd Floor, 39 East Court, College Lane, East Grinstead, RH19 3LT (01342) 311999

Provided and run by:
Brooker Care Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

22 May 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 22 May 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a care at home service. We wanted to be sure that someone would be in to speak with us.

Brooker Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community and provides a service to adults. On the day of the inspection the service was supporting thirty eight people with a range of health and social care needs, such as people with a physical disability, sensory impairment or people living with dementia. Support was tailored according to people’s assessed needs within the context of people’s individual preferences and lifestyles to help people to live and maintain independent lives.

At the last inspection on 23 May 2016, the service was rated as good in the areas of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People told us that they felt safe. Staff remained to have a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities for identifying and reporting allegations of abuse and knew how to access policies and procedures regarding protecting people from abuse. Risks to people were assessed and monitored during their stay and communicated with other healthcare professionals involved in their care.

People remained were able to make choices about their support provided to them and were able to maintain their independence. People and were provided with information and guidance to access other services which were relevant to them for any on-going support they may need.

The service had experienced staff to ensure people were safe and cared for on visits. Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to ensure visits were covered and to keep people safe. Staffing levels were determined by the number of people using the service and their needs.

Staff considered peoples capacity using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) as guidance. People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s individual needs continued to be assessed and detailed care plans were developed to identify what care and support they required. People were consulted about their care to ensure wishes and preferences were met. The provider had arrangements in place for the safe administration of medicines. People were supported to receive their medicine when they needed it.

People’s individuality was respected and people’s preferences were taken into account when planning their care such as religion. There was an accessible complaints process in place which people knew how to use if they needed to.

Staff continued to receive regular training and updates to be able to have the right skills and knowledge to be able to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff had regular spot checks, supervisions and appraisals to help them to understand their roles and responsibilities.

Staff received infection control training and used Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when supporting people with personal care tasks.

Quality assurance and information governance systems remained in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. People and relatives all told us that they were happy with the service provided and the way it was managed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

23 February 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 23 February 2016 and was announced. Forty eight hours’ notice of the inspection was given to ensure that the people we needed to speak to were available in the office.

Brooker Care Limited is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support services for a range of people living in their own homes. These included older people, people living with dementia and people with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection 33 people were receiving a personal care service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

The experiences of people were positive. People and relatives told us they felt safe and staff were kind and the care they received was good. One person told us “There is always someone on the end of the phone they are always there, that makes me feel safe”.

There were good systems and processes in place to keep people safe. Assessments of risk had been undertaken and there were instructions for staff on what action to take in order to mitigate them. Staff knew how to recognise the potential signs of abuse and what action to take to keep people safe. The registered manager made sure there was enough staff at all times to meet people’s needs. When the provider employed new staff at the service they followed safe recruitment practices.

The provider had arrangements in place for the safe administration of medicines. People were supported to receive their medicine when they needed it. People were supported to maintain good health and had assistance to access health care services when needed.

The service considered peoples capacity using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) as guidance. People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed. Staff observed the key principles in their day to day work checking with people that they were happy for them to undertake care tasks before they proceeded.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff received regular training to ensure they had up to date information to undertake their roles and responsibilities. One member of staff told us “The training is good. The in-house training is lovely, well thought out, friendly, quite relaxed but you always learn something”.

People were supported at mealtimes to access food and drink of their choice and were supported to undertake activities away from their home. One person told us “My meals get delivered and I choose what I want each day and they will prepare it for me”.

People and relatives told us staff were very caring. One person told us “I am very happy indeed I was desperate when I set this up I found them through recommendation they came and saw me immediately and I haven't looked back”.

People confirmed staff respected their privacy and dignity. Staff had a very good understanding of respecting people within their own home and providing them with choice and control. The service had identified people’s needs and preferences in order to plan and deliver their care.

There were clear lines of accountability. The service had good leadership and direction from the registered manager and provider. Staff felt fully supported by management to undertake their roles. Staff were given training updates, supervision and development opportunities. For example staff were offered the opportunity to undertake additional training and development courses to increase their understanding of needs of people using the service.

Feedback was sought by the registered manager via surveys which were sent to people and their relatives. Survey results were positive and any issues identified acted upon. People and relatives we spoke with were aware of how to make a complaint and felt they would have no problem raising any issues. The provider responded to complaints in a timely manner with details of any action taken.