You are here

Brown Edge House Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 April 2016

Brown Edge House is registered to provide accommodation for people who do not receive nursing care. The service is located in a residential area of St Helens, Merseyside. The service provides care and support for up to 20 people.

This was an unannounced inspection carried out by an Adult Social Care inspector. During the inspection we spoke with seven people who lived at the service, five members of staff, two visitors, the registered manager and the registered provider. 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.

We observed care and support in communal areas, spoke with people in private and looked at care and management records.

We saw that medicines were not always managed safely or given in a manner that met people’s individual needs.

Some of the systems used to assess the quality of the service had not identified the issues that we found during the inspection. These were discussed with the registered manager and the registered provider who immediately put new systems into place.

People told us that they had been included in planning and agreeing to the care and support provided. We saw that people had an individual plan, which outlined some of the ways staff were to support individuals. Risks were not always addressed in order to fully maintain the safety of people.

People told us that they were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Visiting professionals were complimentary about the support given by the service and the warm welcome they themselves received. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to the staff in the service.

Staff we spoke with recognised the importance of knowing people’s routines, so that, people received personalised support.

Staff took the time to get to know people and supported them in undertaking activities according to their hobbies and interests.

People told us they were able to see their friends and families as they wanted. We saw that there were arrangements in place to support people living in the service to access the community and maintain relationships with their families.

The staff told us they were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the safety or welfare of an individual. They told us they would be confident in reporting any concerns to management.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 12 April 2016

People in the service were placed at risk because medication was not managed safely and improvements were needed in order to meet people’s needs.

Recruitment records showed that staff were checked appropriately before they started working in the service.

There were enough staff in place to ensure people received appropriate support to meet their care needs.

All staff working in the service knew how to recognise and report abuse.



Updated 12 April 2016

Staff we spoke with had an understanding of how to obtain and act on people’s consent. There was a limited understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to ensure the rights of people to make decisions were respected.

All staff were provided with training to meet the needs of people living in the service.

Arrangements were in place to request health, social and medical support to help people stay well. People were given support to remain independent.

We found the registered provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).



Updated 12 April 2016

The service was caring.

The service was caring.

It was clear in our observations that staff had a rapport with people living in the service.

People’s rights to privacy and dignity were respected and staff were observed to be patient and interacting well with people.

Staff were aware of people’s individual needs, backgrounds and personalities. This helped staff provide individualised care to people. People told us they were happy with the care and support they received and their needs were met.



Updated 12 April 2016

People told us they felt confident to raise any concerns and their opinions would be listened to.

People’s health, care and support needs were assessed and individual choices and preferences were discussed with people who lived in the service.

Family members and friends played an important role and people spent time with them.



Updated 12 April 2016

The provider had notified us of any incidents that they were required to.

There were some systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. We identified some gaps in these systems and these were immediately rectified following the inspection.

The registered manager and registered provider were well respected by all staff and more importantly by people living in the service.

People were supported to express their opinions about the service provided and to influence service delivery.