Brooklands Homecare Ltd - Edenbridge

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in continued breach of legal regulation in relation to governance.

This service scored 54 (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 clear shared direction and a positive culture that staff and people using the service understood.

Leaders and staff consistently described a friendly, supportive environment where the focus was on providing personalised, dignified care. People and relatives confirmed there was a positive culture at the service describing staff as “very kind and caring” and “Excellent - I couldn't ask for anything more."

Leaders had not always understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

Leadership did not always demonstrate the capability and oversight needed to ensure consistently safe and well‑governed care. There had been changes to the management team at the end of 2025. This meant that there was a gap in the management team’s knowledge and skills which in turn had an effect on the management of the service. Although the provider had been working to update their skills, we found not enough timely action had been taken and there were significant shortfalls in managerial oversight at the time of our inspection. Governance checks were overdue, including care plan and medicine audits and people had been placed at risk of harm due to some of the practices at the service. The provider was aware of this and put a detailed action plan in place following the inspection. We will check this at our next inspection to ensure changes were embedded and effective.

The provider had also been unaware of their responsibility to report certain significant events to CQC. Following this discussion during the inspection the provider submitted the required notification.

However, people and relatives spoke positively about managers, describing them as “approachable, friendly and helpful”. Staff told us leaders listened and were supportive both personally and professionally.

The provider had not always fostered a culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be protected.

The whistleblowing policy was up to date and included clear contacts for external agencies. The provider told us they had an open-door policy where staff could share concerns and concerns were discussed during supervisions. Most staff agreed and told us the provider promoted an open and honest culture where they generally felt able to raise concerns. However, we identified a concern about confidentiality which we discussed this with the management team during the inspection. The management team told us they planned to reassure staff about confidentiality at their next staff meeting.

Some staff fed back they would like more opportunities to meet as a team and to discuss the service and care together. We shared this feedback with the provider, and they told us they planned to meet twice a year going forward to address this feedback.

People using the service and relatives said they had no hesitation contacting the office. The service’s recent quality assurance telephone monitoring showed most people contacted felt concerns would be investigated, except for 1 person whose feedback was escalated to management.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture for people who worked for them.

Staff were treated fairly and included within the workforce. Staff described being supported with flexible working and personal challenges.

Managers ensured recruitment included checks on candidates’ right to work, references and DBS screening. Although some employment histories needed strengthening, there was no evidence of discriminatory practices. The workforce included long‑standing staff who told us they felt valued.

Staff received equality and diversity training, and staff described this as guiding fair treatment of everyone.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance systems were not effective in ensuring safe, effective and consistent care. Although leaders were committed and caring, they did not ensure robust oversight of risk, quality and regulatory compliance.

There were widespread gaps and delays in essential audits, including medicine audits. Medicines management was unsafe and the lack of governance meant concerns with practice had not been identified and addressed. The provider had not followed their own policy in relation to medicine management. The provider was behind on audits of people’s care records such as contact notes which meant the provider did not have effective oversight, some issues with people’s care had not been identified and dealt with in a timely manner. The providers previous governance systems for risk assessments and care plans were not robust and did not support them to identify the concerns we found at this inspection. For example, the provider had not identified when risks for people had not been assessed such as risk of seizure, nor had they identified when records lacked sufficient details to guide staff to deliver safe, effective and consistent care such as for catheter care.

Leaders did not ensure that care plans and risk assessments were updated when people’s needs changed. Several examples were seen where clinical risks such as pressure sores, changes in mobility and changes in medicines were not reflected in care records until after this inspection prompted action.

Accidents and incidents had previously been monitored monthly however the provider had changed this to six monthly. Accident and incident monitoring was inconsistent, with missed entries, a lack of analysis, and delays and lack of reporting notifiable events.

The provider formulated an action plan following the inspection to address the concerns raised and was eager to improve the service. Some of the proposed actions were underway and some had not yet been started and required embedding. We will check this at our next inspection.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information with partners or collaborate for improvement.

Although there was evidence of partnership working in some areas, gaps in governance meant multidisciplinary guidance was not always reflected in care records. The provider had not always shared information with CQC as required or sought advice from other relevant professionals in relation to people’s medicine administration.

However, a professional noted, “Brooklands are proactive… They work closely with us to identify how we can improve support.” People and relatives felt the service worked in partnership to ensure their needs were met. People were supported to remain part of their community where possible such as supported to attend church. Staff were familiar with families and maintained positive relationships that helped sustain people’s independence and wellbeing.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice.

The provider did not always demonstrate effective learning or continuous improvement. For example, there were ineffective systems in place to monitor and review accidents and incidents to identify any lessons learnt or changes to people’s care records to review.

There was limited evidence that leaders analysed key areas of care delivery such as incidents, safeguarding concerns, or audit findings over time to identify trends or drive quality improvement.

Staff had not always been encouraged to develop and improve their practice. For example, there was no structured specialist training for areas such as diabetes, catheter care or pressure care despite the service supporting people with these needs. The lack of regular staff meetings reduced opportunities for systematic learning across the team to support development and better enable staff.

The provider responded positively to inspection feedback, immediately implementing a comprehensive action plan including audits, staff meetings, training updates, improvements to care plans and a review of medicine management. This demonstrated willingness to improve which we will check at our next inspection.