Brook House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency,equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understandingchallenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Leaders and staff understood the provider’s values and were committed to delivering good-quality, person-centred care. This was supported by clear policies and procedures. Managers were open and honest and promoted an inclusive culture, with a strong focus on learning and continuous improvement.

We observed a positive learning culture within the service, and staff said they felt able to speak up because they knew concerns would be taken seriously. Learning from incidents and safeguarding matters was shared with staff to help improve practice.

Regular daily meetings with department leads helped managers maintain oversight of the service and ensured important information was shared. Staff were encouraged to share ideas about improving care, which helped them feel involved and valued. A senior member of staff told us, “These meetings are good and informative.” Feedback from people and relatives also reflected a positive culture within the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The home did not have a Registered Manager in post at the time of the inspection. The provider was in the process of recruiting and developing new managers and leaders to ensure the service is managed in line with the provider’s standards and procedures. In the meantime, the home was supported by two regional support managers and a regional director, which provided leadership oversight and continuity.

The current leadership team demonstrated openness and responded promptly to issues identified during the inspection. They showed a clear willingness to improve systems and practice. The provider, leaders, and staff were committed to making the home welcoming and homely for people living there.

Feedback from people and their families about how the service was managed was mostly positive. Leaders were open and honest about areas that needed improvement, and some improvements were made before the inspection was completed.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider promoted an open and positive culture where people felt able to speak up and be heard. Meetings were held with people and their relatives to give them opportunities to share their views and raise concerns.

Staff told us they felt confident raising concerns and knew how to use the whistleblowing process if needed. They were confident that concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon. Staff also understood that concerns could be raised externally with the local authority or the Care Quality Commission (CQC) if required. One staff member told us, “I can go to the deputy manager or the manager if I have any concerns. They always listen and act. If I want to raise something anonymously, I can do that.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider valued diversity and promoted an inclusive and fair workplace. An equal opportunities policy was in place, and the workforce reflected the diversity of the local community. The provider had policies to promote equality, diversity and inclusion and to protect staff from discrimination and harassment.

Recruitment and career progression were fair, and staff work patterns were adjusted where needed to support personal circumstances. Staff came from a range of backgrounds and brought strong skills and knowledge to their roles. They told us they felt valued, respected, and treated equally.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. Monitoring processes and procedures covered all aspects of service, risks, performance and delivery of quality care, treatment but were not fully effective. Further scrutiny and accountability were needed to ensure governance oversight was robust.

Systems and processes were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service; however, they were not always effective. Regular audits were completed, but these did not consistently identify gaps or contradictory information in care records, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) processes, statutory notifications, or staff supervision records. This meant that further oversight and monitoring were needed to ensure risks were identified and addressed in a timely way.

For example, a person’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation had not been notified to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and conditions attached to the authorisation had not been actioned. When this was raised during the inspection, the provider took immediate action to address the issue.

CCTV was in use in communal areas; however, the provider was unable to provide evidence that people had given consent. Where people lacked capacity, Mental Capacity Assessments and Best Interest decisions were not in place to support the use of CCTV. The provider acknowledged this shortfall and confirmed that action would be taken to obtain consent and complete the required assessments.

The home was almost fully occupied, and being part of a larger organisation supported its financial sustainability. Business continuity plans were in place to manage emergencies, including fire, flood, infectious outbreaks, and utility failures.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Staff worked closely with GPs, dietitians, therapists, and community nurses, with clear evidence of joint care planning and timely referrals. This helped ensure people received coordinated and appropriate care.

The home had a range of shared spaces, including a cinema room and lounges, where people could spend time together. The activities team played an important role in helping people feel part of the home and the wider community. A relative spoke positively about the activities team and their person-centred support, including helping their family member access community activities.

The service also maintained strong links with the local community. People told us they enjoyed visits from local groups, such as choirs, and taking part in community events, which supported social inclusion and wellbeing.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff and leaders showed a strong commitment to learning and continuous improvement. They were open and transparent, and some actions were taken during the inspection to address issues identified. The service responded promptly to feedback and demonstrated a clear willingness to improve.

Feedback from people, relatives, staff, and professionals was used to make improvements to care. Leaders promoted an open culture where learning from incidents, safeguarding concerns, complaints, and examples of good practice was shared with staff to reduce the risk of issues happening again.

Clear processes were in place to support learning, reflection, and shared problem-solving. Leaders and staff recognised the importance of learning from accidents, incidents, audits, and feedback as opportunities to improve the service and enhance people’s quality of life. The service also maintained positive links with local community groups, which supported ongoing learning and engagement.