• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Brooklands Homecare Ltd - Worthing

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

19 Raglan Avenue, Worthing, West Sussex, BN13 2AW (01903) 244424

Provided and run by:
Brooklands Homecare Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile
Important:

We issued a warning notice on Brooklands Homecare Ltd on 10 October 2025 for an absence of systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service and the failure to ensure safe care and treatment at Brooklands Homecare Ltd - Worthing.

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Dates of assessment: 11 September to 24 September 2025. Brooklands Homecare – Worthing is a homecare provider, providing personal care to people living in their own homes. They support older people living with dementia and/or frailty. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 14 people with the regulated activity of personal care.

The registered manager did not hold day to day oversight of the service and visited on an annual basis; they delegated responsibility to a branch manager who did not have a full understanding of legislation and Regulation. The registered manager did not ensure quality assurance processes were conducted to support the safe running of the service. Quality assurance processes to check medicine administration records were inaccurate and there were no other audits or checks to monitor other areas of the service.

Records regarding people’s health needs and recommended equipment were not kept up to date and contained limited or out of date information. Risks in relation to specific health needs such as, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and for people living with dementia were not assessed to guide staff about how to safely support people. Reviews and reassessments had not been conducted for a person who had not used the service due to a hospital stay, this meant staff did not always have an up-to-date view of people’s needs.

Lessons were not always learnt following safety events. People’s falls risks were not assessed and reassessed following falls. Managers did not have full oversight of people’s needs including details of pressure injuries. Although professionals were appropriately engaged to support people, assessments and reviews had not been conducted by managers to mitigate future occurrences.

Managers did not ensure staff were recruited safely; staff were deployed prior to required checks being completed. Staff did not receive training specific to people’s health needs. Staff completed online training but their competency to safely support people had not been assessed, this included to administer medicines.

Safeguarding knowledge and practices were not embedded, not all staff knew where they could escalate concerns outside of the service. The provider’s safeguarding policy and whistle-blowing policy were out of date and did not contain the local authority team’s contact details.

Staff were not routinely supervised and monitored; staff meetings were held annually. However, staff told us they could speak to managers whenever they needed to and had confidence managers would listen to them. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and said they felt valued.

Managers had failed to obtain formal consent from people. However, staff routinely asked permission when supporting people. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They understood the importance of promoting people’s independence by ensuring they were offered choice and control over their lives. People were treated as individuals; they were supported by kind and consistent staff who knew them well. Staff provided person-centred care as they had learnt people’s preferences and routines. However, people’s wishes were not always documented.

Staff and managers engaged well with professionals and sought timely intervention if they noticed people needed additional support. Professionals told us staff and managers were responsive and followed their advice. However, their advice had not been updated into people’s care plans/information sheets. The branch manager told us they emailed updates to staff; the updates did not include risk assessments and lacked information.

Staff practiced good infection prevention and control measures, they described how they kept people safe by wearing appropriate personal protective equipment.

Managers did not routinely seek people’s formal feedback about the service. Although, people and their relatives told us they could contact the service at any time and were confident their feedback or any complaints would be listened to.

At this inspection we have identified 5 breaches of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding, staffing, good governance and the requirements relating to the registered manager.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and / or appeals have been concluded.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we user our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

20 November 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Brooklands Homecare Ltd is a small domiciliary care agency providing personal care to 16 people at the time of the inspection. The agency is based in Worthing and supports people in the surrounding areas.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were being supported by staff who were kind and caring. Feedback about the staff was all positive. As the service was small people knew their care workers well and had consistency with their care and support. Relationships between staff and people and their relatives had developed.

People were supported safely by staff who had been trained and were well supported by the management. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet the agreed care packages. There was an on call system which supported people and staff to have access to a manager at all times. People’s risks had been identified and there were plans in place to help manage risks identified.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People had their own care plans which were reviewed when needed. A copy was kept in people’s homes, so they could access them when they wished.

People’s care was personalised as staff knew their likes and dislikes. People and relatives had access to a complaints process to raise concerns. All the feedback about the branch manager was positive. There was confidence in their ability to manage the service.

Quality monitoring was being carried out and staff were encouraged to share their thoughts about improving the service. People and their relatives were asked for feedback to monitor the quality of the care and support.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 15 June 2017). Since this rating was awarded the service has moved the office location. We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

12 May 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection was announced and took place on 12 May 2017.

Brooklands Homecare Ltd - Worthing is a small domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people in their own homes. The agency provides services to people who live Worthing and Ferring. People who receive a service include those living with frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age, mobility needs and health conditions.

At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 10 people. Visits ranged from 15 minutes to over one hour. The frequency of visits range from one visit per week to four visits per day depending on people’s individual needs.

During our inspection the registered manager was present. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People and care workers spoke highly of the registered manager and the company. People expressed satisfaction with the service they received. Despite this, we found that quality assurance systems were not being used to ensure accurate records were maintained at the agency office and to drive improvements. We have made a recommendation about this in the main body of the report.

Everyone that we spoke with said that they felt safe with the care workers who supported them. Care workers received training and were knowledgeable in recognising signs of potential abuse and the relevant reporting procedures. Recruitment checks were completed to ensure care workers were safe to support people.

People said that they received care visits at the agreed times and that care workers always stayed for the full allocated time. Care workers also said that they had sufficient time to care for people safely.

Safe medicine systems were in place. Risks to peoples safety were assessed and action taken to reduce any harm to people. Care workers understood the procedures that should be followed in the event of an emergency or if a person was to have an accident or to fall.

People said that care workers had the appropriate skills to meet their needs and that they provided effective care. A programme of induction, training and supervision was in place that equipped care workers with the skills and knowledge needed to care for people. Care workers were knowledgeable about the people they supported.

People were happy with the support they received to eat and drink and to manage any health needs they had. Care workers were provided with information before they started to care for people and were kept informed when people’s needs changed.

Care workers understood people’s rights to be involved in decisions about their care and were able to explain what consent to care meant in practice. People were supported to express their views and to be involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People said that they were treated with kindness and respect by the care workers who supported them. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. Care workers understood the importance of building trusting relationships with people.

There was a positive culture at the agency that was open, inclusive and empowering. People said that they were aware who to speak to in order to raise concerns. The agency had a complaints procedure in place to respond to people’s concerns and to drive improvement.