- Care home
Brook Court
This care home is run by two companies: Care UK Care Services Limited and Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home
Assessment report published 16 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 27 April 2026 to 19 May 2026. Brook Court is a care home which provides residential and nursing care for up to 67 people. The service supports older people and people living with dementia. It is also registered to support those with a learning disability and autism.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The policies and procedures supported best practice.
People were protected from avoidable harm through effective systems for reporting and reviewing incidents and accidents. These were overseen by management, with learning cascaded to staff to reduce future risk. Staff demonstrated awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew how to recognise and report concerns. The provider submitted safeguarding notifications to the local authority in a timely way to keep people safe.
People had personalised risk assessments reflecting individual needs, including mobility, nutrition, skin integrity, dementia and behaviours that may challenge. People were involved in these assessments and staff understood how to keep them safe. There were suitable staffing levels to ensure people received support without unnecessary delay, and safe recruitment processes were followed. Medicines were administered as prescribed by trained and competent staff. The provider followed effective infection prevention and control practices to keep people safe.
Risks to some areas within the service had not been effectively reduced and some hazards were present. We raised this with the management team who addressed our concerns.
People’s needs were assessed using recognised tools relating to areas such as nutrition, hydration, weight loss and skin integrity. Care and support plans were person-centred, reflected people’s individual clinical needs and people were involved in their development. The provider monitored outcomes to ensure people received timely input from external professionals, including GPs and district nursing teams.
We identified some concerns regarding dignity and respectful care. We spoke to the management team who took measures to address this immediately. Despite these concerns, inspectors also observed positive, caring and engaging interactions, which were reinforced through conversations with people and families. People were treated as individuals and staff responded to them in a timely way. People were supported to remain independent and had choice.
People received care that reflected their individual needs and preferences. Systems were in place to identify and support people’s protected characteristics and promote equality. The provider had an established complaints and compliments process, and people felt able to raise concerns. Public feedback, including online reviews, was positive overall. People who may be disadvantaged when accessing health and social care services were supported to receive equitable treatment. People had information presented to them in a way they could understand and they, and those close to them, were supported in making future plans.
The provider promoted a culture focused on compassionate, person centred care, which was echoed in staff discussions. Governance systems were in place, including audits of care plans, medication and the physical environment, with actions tracked and completed through a continuous action plan.
People were supported by a compassionate, capable and inclusive management team. The provider demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement, with plans to enhance people’s experiences, such as involving people in community focused micro enterprise activity. The manager actively maintained their own professional development through training and continuous learning.
People's experience of this service
People living at Brook Court and their relatives spoke positively about their experiences of care and described staff as kind, respectful and caring. People consistently said they felt safe at the service and trusted staff to support them appropriately. Relatives told us they felt confident in the care their family members received and said staff kept them informed and involved where appropriate.
People told us staff were patient, friendly and spoke to them kindly. Several people said staff were never rough and treated them with dignity. Relatives described staff as respectful, attentive and professional, and said staff responded quickly if there were any concerns, accidents or changes in people’s health. People said they felt comfortable asking for help and were confident staff would respond.
People said staff supported them in a way that met their needs. People told us they were supported to get up and go to bed at times that suited them, to choose whether to stay in bed, and to access activities they enjoyed. People spoke positively about activities such as quizzes, music, outings and time spent in the garden. Relatives said staff responded promptly to issues raised and adapted care where needs changed.
People and relatives described the meal experience positively. During lunch, people were supported in a calm and sociable environment and were offered choices of food and drinks. Staff spoke to people in a friendly manner, used people’s preferred names and respected their choices, including offering alternatives if someone did not enjoy their meal.
People felt listened to and said they would feel able to raise concerns if needed. People and relatives were aware of the management team and described the service as well run.
There were some areas where people’s experiences were less consistent. A small number of people and observations indicated that staff did not always knock or ask permission before entering people’s rooms. Some people felt staff could be rushed at busy times.
Overall, people living at the service and their relatives shared largely positive experiences and described feeling safe, cared for and treated with kindness.