Archived: The Brookland

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people not receiving person-centred care that suited their needs and preferences. People were supported with end-of-life care planning.

This service scored 36 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The provider told of 1 person, “X is quite active. X goes out every day.” However, we noted from care records, over 45 days, the person only went out on 17 occasions. These outings were limited to going to the shops, health appointments or visits from their family member (in the care home). The provider and staff told us the person’s college course, which they enjoyed, was not available until September 2025. However, they had not taken steps to source other meaningful activities that would suit the person. A relative fed back they would like to see their family member go out more.

The leaders and staff were not sufficiently supporting people to develop friendships including facilitating opportunities for social interaction. This included creating a supportive environment, promoting positive social skills, and helping people find common interests. One person’s social interaction was generally limited to their family member, occasional visits from other people in the providers other homes and when they visited and their staff team.

We did see evidence of a person enjoying activities when in the home including art and playing word games which they enjoyed. They also enjoyed sitting in the newly refurbished garden that their family member had built for them.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. The staff did not always understand the diverse health and care needs of people, there were staff that lacked an understanding of the needs of people living with an acquired brain injury and a mental health diagnosis. The provider told us 1 person disliked places where there were loud noises. However, there was no evidence they had considered reducing noise levels, offering sensory aids like earplugs or noise-cancelling headphones, and allowing for breaks in noisy situations. This meant the person’s opportunities to go out were limited.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Whilst we saw there was some information that was easily accessible for people, this was limited to 1 section of a care plan that was in easy read picture format for the person and a display on their bedroom wall depicting the date. We saw there was an activity schedule for one person that had recently been updated. However, the activities included their college course which had not taken place since 2024. The provider told us the person was very articulate and was able to read and write well. Yet it was not clear whether they required documents in easy read format (as seen in 1 section of their care plan) or whether they were able to read and understand any documents. There was no evidence they had made information readily available to the person.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Whilst we saw there were surveys completed on behalf of people; the questions posed were not phrased in a way that would be understood for people with an acquired brain injury. One ‘survey’ questionnaire was written as a care review rather than questions posed to ask for feedback on areas they would like to improve. One question asked if the person felt lonely and answer was ‘sometimes’. There was no further information on how this was explored with the person or what they could do to help to support them with this. The second survey was entitled ‘easy read’ however again the questions posed were very formal. There was no evidence the person was allocated a key worker to advocate for the person’s needs and wishes to ensure they were heard and respected. There was no evidence that family members had been asked for formal feedback.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, we noted from a person’s records they had a tremor in their hands. As a result, health care professionals had changed the person’s medicine. The provider had recorded that as a result the person was no longer shaking. However, we noted the person’s hands were very shaky and they needed support from staff to hold their drink. This had not been reported back to health care professionals. The provider had also not accurately reported to health care professionals the status of a person’s seizures and sleep pattern.

Other health appointments had been made for people including breast and bowel screening.

We found people who used the service were not treated as an individual. There was a lack of evidence each person's self-defined strengths, preferences, aspirations and needs as the basis on which to provide care and support to live an independent life was undertaken.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. We saw there was an easy read end of life care plan that included information about the person’s wishes leading up to their death and after.