Brook House Care Home

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 remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Some care plans contained outdated or conflicting information and needed updating to reflect people’s current needs and risks accurately. For example, one care record stated that a person required two staff and a hoist with a sling for transfers, while another section recorded that they used a Zimmer frame. There were also inconsistencies in continence records, with references to both an indwelling catheter and the use of pads. These issues had the potential to cause confusion for staff and affect the consistency of care.

We also found examples of outdated information, such as references to sensor mats that were no longer in use and unclear recording of repositioning needs. The manager confirmed that action had been taken to review and update care plans. However, some gaps in records showed that stronger follow-up was needed to ensure changes were fully completed and embedded into practice.

There was positive practice observed alongside these concerns. Fluid intake targets were set based on individual need rather than using a blanket approach. Mealtimes were supportive and interactive, with staff engaging positively with people and providing assistance in a calm and respectful way, rather than treating meals as a task.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider demonstrated a good understanding of people’s diverse health and care needs, which supported joined-up, flexible care and continuity. Staff worked well together as a team and understood the importance of providing consistent support. They had easy access to people’s care plans, which helped them deliver timely and appropriate care.

Handover arrangements had improved and were supporting better communication and continuity of care. The provider also worked effectively with external professionals. Records showed regular involvement from GPs, dietitians, therapists, and community nurses. Weekly GP rounds supported ongoing monitoring of people’s health needs and helped ensure continuity of healthcare.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Clear signage throughout the home supported people, including those living with dementia, to find their way around safely and independently.

People were given information in ways they could understand to help them make choices. Menus included photographs of meals, which helped people choose what they wanted to eat. Information about activities was displayed in communal areas, and staff encouraged people to take part in events and outings that matched their interests.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives gave positive feedback and said they felt listened to and involved. One relative told us, “I’ve been invited to give my comments. If I needed to approach anyone about a problem I could do so. They are so relaxed and it’s so friendly.”

Records showed that people knew how to raise concerns or make complaints. Complaints were investigated and responded to in line with the provider’s policy and procedures. People and their relatives were confident that concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon.

People were involved in decisions about their care and support. They were also encouraged to share feedback through compliments and complaints. During the inspection, we observed staff listening to people’s requests and adapting care straight away, which showed that feedback was valued and used to improve people’s experience.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider ensured that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home, so any adaptations or equipment required for their care were in place from the start.

People told us their care and support needs were met and that there were no barriers to accessing care. When people’s needs changed, referrals were made promptly to specialist services, such as the falls team and dietitians.

Staff understood that people had the right to equal access to health and care support, regardless of disability. The environment was fully accessible, with all areas of the home, including the garden, suitable for wheelchair users. This helped people remain as independent as possible.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People appeared happy, comfortable, and well cared for across the service. We observed staff adapting care to meet people’s individual circumstances, including supporting people with limited communication by recognising body language and other non-verbal cues.

Care plans included information about what was important to people, such as family relationships, social interests, and cultural or spiritual needs. Staff used this information to guide how care was provided and to ensure people received support that was fair and personalised.

Relatives told us their family members were treated with respect and dignity and that they felt confident no one was disadvantaged. Relatives also spoke very positively about staff, describing them as caring, attentive, and supportive.

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.

People’s end of life wishes and preferences were recorded and understood by staff. End of life care plans were in place and provided clear guidance to support people’s comfort, dignity, and choices.

Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and ReSPECT records were available and easy for staff to access, including in an emergency. Staff had received training to support them to provide compassionate and appropriate end of life care.