You are here

Brooklands Nursing & Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 19 December 2017

The inspection took place on 17 October 2017 and was unannounced.

Brooklands Nursing and Residential Home provides residential and nursing care for up to 70 older people. The service is delivered over three floors one of which is dedicated to people living with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 64 people living in the home. It is purpose built and all floors are serviced with a lift. A number of communal areas are available to those living there as well as an enclosed and accessible garden.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 service had procedures in place that minimised the risk of employing people not suitable to work at Brooklands Nursing and Residential Home. New staff received an induction and spoke of being well supported in their roles. Training was delivered that met the needs of those people who used the service.

Staff morale was good and people benefited from receiving support from staff who were happy in their roles. Staff felt valued, included and listened to. Good team work was evident and this benefited those that used the service. The home was welcoming and friendly and we saw that it ran smoothly and efficiently. There were enough staff to meet people’s individual needs.

Care and support was delivered in a professional, considerate and compassionate manner. People’s dignity, privacy and confidentiality were maintained and choice was encouraged and supported. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people were in control of their own decisions.

Procedures were in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff had knowledge of how to prevent, protect and identify potential abuse and all had received training in this. The management team liaised with the local safeguarding team as required and reported concerns, as instructed by law, to CQC.

The risks to individuals had been robustly identified, managed and reviewed and staff had knowledge of these. Risks relating to the environment, equipment and working practices had also been appropriately managed and mitigated. Accidents and incidents were recorded and used to minimise future risk. People received their medicines as the prescriber intended and the service followed good practice guidelines. Medicines records were accurate and complete.

The CQC is required to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. The service adhered to the principles of the MCA and the care delivered reflected this.

People received care and support that was individual to them and staff knew their needs and preferences well. Care plans were person centred and demonstrated that people had been involved in the development of them. They considered the person throughout.

People enjoyed the activities the service provided and told us they met their needs. The service had recognised the need for more activities and was recruiting new staff to support this. Staff knew the people they supported well and had built trusting, respectful relationships that used humour as appropriate.

The healthcare professionals we spoke with talked positively about the way the service met people’s health and welfare needs. The people who used the service, and their relatives, agreed. People had prompt and appropriate access to health care and the service was proactive and preventative in their approach to this.

People’s nutritional needs were met and they had enough to eat and drink. They told us they had choice and that they enjoyed the food provided. The service had recognised the importance of social interaction over food and encouraged and supported this.

The s

Inspection areas



Updated 19 December 2017

The service was safe.

The risks to people who used the service, and others, had been identified, assessed and managed to help protect people from the risk of harm.

There were enough staff to meet people�s needs on an individual basis. However, staff remained busy and did not always have time to sit with people.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.



Updated 19 December 2017

The service was effective.

Staff felt supported in their roles and encouraged to develop their skills and abilities. The training they had received was in line with that required to meet the needs of people who used the service.

The service adhered to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff had a good working knowledge of it.

People�s nutritional and healthcare needs were met appropriately, responsively and promptly.



Updated 19 December 2017

The service was caring.

People spoke of staff who were patient, kind and understanding and who knew them, and their needs, well.

Staff understood the importance of maintaining people�s dignity and encouraging choice and independence.

People had been involved, and encouraged to be involved, in the planning of their care and their choice was sought at each opportunity.



Updated 19 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People received person centred care that put them at the heart of care delivery and planning.

The service supported people to engage in activities and social interaction.

People told us that the service encouraged dialogue in regards to suggestions and used complaints to better improve the service people received.



Updated 19 December 2017

The service was well-led.

People spoke positively about the management and governance of the home and all said they would recommend it.

Staff were happy in their roles and felt valued. This contributed to communicative, respectful and effective team work which benefited those that lived at the home.

The auditing of the quality of the service was robust and focused on people�s experiences in order to make improvements.