• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Brook House Residential Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

213 Barrack Road, Christchurch, Dorset, BH23 2AX (01202) 483960

Provided and run by:
Brook House Dorset Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

18 March 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Brook House is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation to older people. At the time of our inspection there were six people using the service. Brook House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 10 people. Accommodation is provided over two floors and people have shared use of toilets and specialist bathrooms.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Policies and procedures were regularly reviewed and updated in line with government best practice.

Visiting was by appointment with visitors met on arrival by a member of staff who ensured safe practice with hand sanitising, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and a rapid COVID-19 test being carried out to ensure visitors had a negative reading. People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends via telephone and video calls.

The home was visibly clean with additional cleaning taking place on touch points, in bathrooms, toilets and following visitors to the home. Hand sanitiser and PPE was in good supply and available throughout the building.

People and staff were participating with both testing and vaccination programmes. Legal requirements had been met when obtaining consent and people’s decisions had been respected.

New admissions were in line with the latest government guidance and included a pre admission COVID-19 test and a 14 day period of self-isolation.

16 April 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Brook House is residential care home that was providing personal care to seven people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People told us they felt safe and consistently spoke positively about the care they received describing staff as friendly and kind. People were supported by a small team of staff that were flexible to people’s changing needs and had not changed since our last inspection. Staff received training and support that enabled them to carry out their roles effectively. We found that some refresher training was overdue, and the registered manager told us they would review this and put it in place immediately.

• Risks to people such as falls and skin damage, environmental risks and risks of preventable infection were regularly assessed and understood by staff. Any identified risks were managed in the least restrictive way recognising people’s freedoms and choices.

• People had their eating and drinking needs met and described the food as really good. Meals were varied and well balanced.

• Staff were responsive to people’s changing care needs and supported people access healthcare when needed. People had their medicines administered safely by trained staff. Some people had medicine prescribed for as and when needed (prn). Additional recording was required to detail the effectiveness of prn medicines, but this had not been completed. During our inspection the registered manager told us they would review best practice guidance on prn medicines and make any necessary changes to the recording of prn medicines.

• Care and support plans were person centred and recognised people’s cultural and spiritual needs and lifestyle choices. People were protected from discrimination as staff had completed equality and diversity training and respected people’s individual life choices. Care plans were reviewed regularly, and people told us they felt involved in decisions about their care. People had opportunities to discuss their end of life wishes including whether they wanted resuscitation to be attempted.

• People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

• Leadership of the home was visible and created an open, positive culture which enabled people, their families and the staff to share ideas, concerns and feedback. Audits and quality assurance processes were in place to monitor the quality of service delivery. Information about national health and social care accidents and incidents was reviewed and used as an opportunity for reflective learning and service improvements.

A full description of our findings can be found in the sections below.

Rating at last inspection: The service was rated ‘Good’ at our last inspection carried out on the 14 October 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.

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

14 October 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 14 October and was unannounced. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 10 adults. The service has eight single rooms and one double room that is used for single occupancy. When we carried out our inspection there were nine people living at the service. There are two bathrooms, one of which has a walk- in bath. The service has a lounge and dining area that people are free to use at any time. The accommodation is over two floors and the first floor can be accessed by a stair lift. Each room has a call bell fitted so that people can call for help when needed.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

People were supported by staff that understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the actions they needed to take if they suspected abuse. Risks people lived with had been assessed and regularly reviewed and actions put in place to minimise the risk. People were involved in decisions about how risks they lived with were managed. This demonstrated they had the freedom to make choices about their lives. We spoke with staff that had a good knowledge of the risks people lived with and their role in reducing risk.

People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs. Staff had been recruited safely which included checks that they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. There were policies and procedures in place to manage any incidents of unsatisfactory staff performance. People received care and support from staff that had the appropriate skills and training. Staff felt supported and received regular supervision and an annual appraisal. Training was regularly reviewed and staff had on-going training plans.

People’s medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely by competent staff that had completed medicine administration training.

Staff were supporting people in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People received care that was designed to meet their needs and staff supported people’s ability and choices about their day to day care. People were offered the support of an advocate at times when they felt they needed independent support with decisions. A person’s ability to make decisions about specific aspects of their life were regularly assessed and kept under review.

Staff understood people’s eating and drinking requirements, likes and dislikes. When people were identified as being at risk of malnutrition or dehydration actions had been put in place and were closely monitored. People had access to healthcare in a timely way which included GP’s, district nurses, audiologists, dentists and opticians.

Staff understood the history of people living in the service and how this impacted on how people wanted to live their lives. This demonstrated that staff were caring for people in a person centred way and listening and respecting people views and wishes. Staff had a good understanding of people’s interests, likes and dislikes. This meant that staff could have conversations with people about things that were important and of interest to them. People had their dignity and privacy respected and were supported in a way that reflected a person’s individuality.

People’s care and support plans had been written and reviewed regularly with people. Staff understood the actions they needed to take to support people with their care. People’s decisions about how they wanted to spend their time was respected and reflected past lifestyles and interests.

People had been given information about how to complain and felt if they did raise any concerns they would be listened to and actions taken.

The service is managed as a family business with care provided by a small team of staff who are part of the family. People described this as a positive experience and valued the inclusion into some aspects of the family life. Staff shared the managements views and beliefs in providing holistic care which respected and supported peoples differences. The service was led professionally whilst ensuring a relaxed homely atmosphere. Information with CQC and other external professionals was shared appropriately and in a timely way.

Audits were robust enough to identify any areas for improvement and included both the environment and peoples care and welfare. A quality assurance process was in place that enabled people the opportunity to share their views about the service they received. When any actions were identified they were acted on ensuring people’s safety and wellbeing.

The registered manager had attended training days and workshops to keep up to date with practice. Since our last inspection this had included a MCA seminar and learning had been incorporated into their practice.

9 September, 11 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We undertook an unannounced inspection on 9 September 2015. The inspection continued on the 11 September and this was announced

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 10 adults. The service has eight single rooms and one double room that is used for single occupancy. When we carried out our inspection there were eight people living at the service. There are two bathrooms, one of which has a walk- in bath. The service has a lounge and dining area that people are free to use at any time. The accommodation is over two floors and the first floor can be accessed by a stair lift. The majority of the building would not be suitable for the use of a hoist to support people with moving and handling. Each room has a call bell fitted so that people can call for help when needed.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

People told us that they feel safe living at the service and had confidence in the people who cared for them. They told us that there were always staff about to help them and they responded quickly to call bells. Staff told us that they had regular safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report any signs of abuse. We looked at staff recruitment and found that staff were being recruited safely with all the necessary checks carried out. Staff files contained evidence of training, supervision and a yearly appraisal. Staff had received the mandatory training and in addition training specific to the needs of the people living in the service. An example was a person had moved to the service and had diabetes and staff recognised that they needed additional training to understand the condition and support the person.

Each person had care files that contained assessments of any risk to their health and wellbeing. Care plans were in place which detailed the care and support people needed to remain safe whilst having control and making choices about how they choose to live their lives. When we spoke to people using the service we found that the records didn’t consistently reflect what we were being told or what we observed. We raised this with the registered manager who agreed to review the risk assessments and care files.

Medication was stored safely and records were being kept accurately. However, we were told that one person was self-medicating her insulin and risk assessments were not in place to ensure her safety.

Records for the maintenance and service of equipment was up to date, this included fire drills being held with all staff six monthly. Personal fire evacuation plans were not available to evidence on day of inspection. These are to ensure each person’s individual risks are understood in the event of an emergency. We also found that the emergency contingency plan was not available to evidence. This would contain information on how the service would keep people safe in the event of a major incident which affected the running of the service.

We found the home clean in all areas other than one bedroom and the reasons for this and the actions taken were well recorded. The records demonstrated a good understanding of the person’s history and the least restrictive measures taken to reduce any risk of infection.

People told us that they are always cared for by people they know and who knew them well. We spoke to a mental health professional who had supported a person moving into the service. They told us “The staff have taken time to understand him and his needs. They showed compassion and understanding”.

Each person living at the service had a mental capacity assessment carried out prior to admission. We found that a mental health review had been carried out for one person by the community mental health team. The mental capacity review the service were carrying out each month did not reflect this information. Although senior staff have completed training more understanding is needed of the legislation. This is so that people who lack some mental capacity are safeguarded and decisions about their care and treatment are made in line with the legislation protecting their best interests. We discussed with the registered manager who told us he will arrange more refresher training for senior staff.

People told us that the food was good, one person said “Some food is very good, they make lovely sauces”, another person told us “You’re offered two choices for lunch”. People’s weight was monitored and the staff were aware of the support available from specialist dieticians should it be needed. People told us that they regularly have access to GP’s, chiropodists, opticians, dentists and other health professionals.

People, their visitors and health and social care professionals all told us the service was caring. One health professional said “Would be happy for my mum to live in the home, the staff really know the residents”. A GP told us “They look after people with care and love”. One person told us “I have a little chat with the staff when they help me; it keeps me in touch with the real world”.

Six people of the eight people living in the service spent most of their time in their rooms. Four of these people told us they enjoyed being in their room all the time. A visitor told us “I visit weekly; the person I visit doesn’t want to go out but likes to be in their room. They enjoy music and do crosswords and have a daily newspaper”. However another person told us “Don’t feel free enough. Could do with a change of scenery”. Although most people we spoke to were happy with how their time was spent not everybody felt they had been given the opportunity and support to make choices about doing things that interested them.

Earlier in the year we had received a concern about a lack of information when a person was transferred to hospital. We looked at the paperwork the service uses which includes information about why the emergency admission was needed. It also included a list of medication and a record of all the medication taken that day and important contact numbers. The information provided would ensure people get consistent health and medical care. At times people will be transferred to another service and not have the mental capacity to explain how they like to be supported with their care. Information added to the transfer information about the individual care and support needs of people would ensure consistency with person centred care.

People, their families and friends, health and social care professionals and the staff all told us they felt the service was well managed. The manager carries out regular quality audits, including health and safety, moving and handling, accidents and incidents and medication. The audits were up to date and any actions identified had been completed. The service has a complaints process and also annually asks people who use the service and their families to complete a quality assurance questionnaire to gather information about how people view the service. We saw that information gathered was acted upon to improve the experience for one person using the service.

13 May 2014

During a routine inspection

In this inspection, we considered five key questions: Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary details what we observed, what we reviewed in the provider's records, and what people using the service, their relatives, and staff told us about the service.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe. Care plans included risk assessments which reflected people's needs and highlighted the level of support people required from the staff.

The provider had arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. This helped to ensure a safe service.

The equipment we looked at was well maintained and serviced regularly. This meant people were not put at unnecessary risk when using the equipment.

None of the people living at the home were subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards at the time of our visit.

Is the service effective?

People were involved in the assessment of their care needs and development of their care plans. This meant people's care plans reflected their individual needs.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

The provider had established links with other health and social care professionals to ensure people's needs were being met.

There was enough equipment to promote the independence and comfort of people who use the service.

Is the service caring?

One person told us the staff were "all very helpful". Another person said the care provided was "good and efficient". One relative told us the staff were "very kind people".

We saw evidence of the staff interacting with people and treating them with consideration and respect.

People's preferences, interests, and care needs had been identified in their care plans and support was provided in accordance with their wishes.

Is the service responsive?

The provider sought the views of people living at the home to identify any improvements that could be made to the service.

There were systems in place to ensure people's care plans were updated to reflect any changes in the level of support they required. This meant the delivery of care could be adapted to meet people's changing needs.

There was evidence that accidents and incidents were monitored by the provider and appropriate changes were implemented.

There was a complaints procedure in place and the people and relatives we spoke with were aware of how to make a complaint. None of the people we spoke with had needed to make a complaint about the service.

Is the service well led?

The provider had a statement of purpose which provided people with clear information on the staff, accommodation, and services available at the home.

The provider had a quality assurance process in place to ensure the service was meeting the needs and expectations of the people living at the home.

The staff we spoke with understood their role and responsibilities within the home.

15 April 2013

During a routine inspection

People were treated with respect and dignity. They were also involved in their care where they had capacity to consent. Where they did not have the mental capacity to consent, their relatives had been involved in making best interest decisions.

People's care and welfare needs had been assessed and care plans put in place. We found that people were being well-cared for.

Medicines were stored correctly and administered safely to people.

The home is staffed by family members and no new staff had been recruited since we found the home to be compliant with staff recruitment when we last inspected the home.

The home is a small family run home. We found there were suitable systems in place to monitor the quality of service being provided.