We carried out a review of the data available to us about Brook Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Brook Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Brook Court is a care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 67 people. The service provides support to younger and older people who may live with physical disability, dementia, mental health needs or learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were 49 people using the service. Brook Court accommodates people in one adapted building.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Right Support:
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The provider gave people care and support in a safe, clean, well equipped, well-furnished and well-maintained environment that met their sensory and physical needs. Where people wanted support, staff enabled people to access specialist health and social care support in the community. Staff supported people with their medicines.
Right Care:
People received kind and compassionate care. Staff understood and responded to their individual needs. Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. There had been changes to the leadership at the home. People told us they now received support from staff who knew them well and understood how to keep them safe. People’s care, treatment and support plans reflected their range of needs and this promoted their wellbeing
Right Culture:
People received good care because of the ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of the management and staff. Staff knew and understood people well and were responsive, placing people’s wishes, needs and rights at the heart of everything they did. People and those important to them were involved in planning their care. Staff evaluated the quality of support provided to people, involving the person, their families and other professionals as appropriate. Staff ensured risks of a closed culture were minimised so that people received support based on transparency, respect and inclusivity.
The registered manager planned to further develop their systems to ensure people’s care needs continued to be met. The manager had re-introduced checks on the quality and safety of the care provided and staff competency, so they could be assured people received safe care which met their needs. People’s, relatives’ and staff’s views on the care provided were sought and opportunities for learning were identified. Systems had recommenced to ensure improvements driven through in people’s care.
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to the management of the home and staffing. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe, caring and well-led only.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Brook Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 22 January 2020).
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Brook Court is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 67 younger and older people who may also live with dementia, physical or mental health needs, and learning disabilities. Accommodation is across three separate floors. One floor specialises in providing care to people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 63 people living at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received exceptional care which improved their wellbeing from staff who considered and used their knowledge of what mattered to people, to provide individualised care. People knew their lives were important as staff understood how to appreciate their histories and celebrated their unique life experiences. Strong bonds had developed between people and the staff supporting them and relatives told us staff’s kindness also extended to them.
Staff showed commitment to supporting people and spoke with a high degree of warmth about the people they cared for. People were empowered to make their own decisions about the care they wanted, and their relatives were consulted, where people wished for this. Where people needed extra support to make decisions, this was provided by staff who knew people and their preferences well. People were treated with respect and staff were proactive in supporting people’s right to independence and privacy.
People were provided with personalised care and had a wide range of opportunities to do things they enjoyed, based on their preferences. Links with the local community provided people with activities and events, and opportunities to develop meaningful relationships with others. People's communication needs were identified, and assistance was provided to enable people to express themselves in their preferred way. Care plans provided information and guidance for staff on people's care and support needs, and how they liked assistance to be carried out. Systems were in place to take learning from any concerns or complaints and people and relatives were confident staff would address these. Staff were supported to provide good care at the end of people’s lives.
Risks to people had been assessed before they moved to Brook Court and staff understood how to keep people safe. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely by staff who had received appropriate training. The home was clean and well maintained.
Staff had been provided with training and developed skills which linked to the needs of the people they cared for. People enjoyed their mealtime experiences, which reflected their choices, and people were provided the assistance they required so they would have enough to eat and drink to remain well. People saw other health and social care professional promptly when needed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People and relatives told us the home was managed well and the staff team were motivated to provide good care. The provider, registered manager and senior team carried out quality checks to assure themselves that care was being carried out safely and in line with best practice guidelines, and to ensure people enjoyed living at the home.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good, (published 9 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for a maximum of 67 people. There were 59 people living at the home on the day of the inspection. The home is split across three floors comprising a nursing unit, a unit for people living with dementia and a residential unit. There was a registered manager in place. 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.’
At the last inspection on 28 April and 3 May 2016 we found that the provider needed to make some improvements to ensure enough staff were in place and organised in the right way to meet people’s needs effectively and people did not always receive support to engage in meaningful activities to meet their personal needs. This inspection found improvements had been made and people were positive about the care and support they received and the service as a whole.
People were safe and well cared for and staff were able to demonstrate they had sufficient knowledge and skills to carry out their roles effectively and to ensure people who used the service were safely supported.
People were cared for by staff who had a good understanding of protecting people from the risk of abuse and harm and who understood how to meet their individual care needs safely. Staff knew their responsibility to report any concerns and were confident that action would be taken.
People needs were met promptly. Both relatives and staff said that there were sufficient staff numbers to meet people’s needs and we saw staff responding to people in a timely way. People’s rights and freedoms were respected by staff. Staff understood people’s individual care needs and had received training so they would be able to care for people in the best way for them.
People told us they enjoyed meals times where they were joined by staff and were supported to eat and drink enough to stay well. People told us they were happy with choice of food they received. There were good links with health and social care professionals and staff sought and acted upon advice received, so people’s health needs were supported.
People using the service were positive in their feedback about the service and told us staff were caring. Relatives told us the registered manager led staff to provide care that focused on people and took account of their individual needs and preferences. They told us they felt staff were caring and that they knew how to look after the people who lived at the home and that people’s privacy and dignity was respected.
People received care that met their individual needs. People received care that met their individual needs. People were encouraged to join in activities and social events which they enjoyed. People said staff listened to them and they felt confident they could raise any issues should the need arise..
Relatives and staff told the home was well managed and improvements made had improved the care to people. Staff spoke highly of the management team and of the teamwork within the service. Staff were supported through supervisions, team meetings and training to provide care and support in line with people needs and wishes. The quality of service provision and care was monitored and actions taken where required to improve people’s experience of living at the home.
The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care, and the treatment of disease, disorder or injury for a maximum of 67 people. There were 59 people living at the home on the day of the inspection. The home is split across three floors comprising a nursing unit, a unit for people living with dementia and a residential unit. There was a registered manager in place. 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 cared for by staff who had a good understanding of protecting people from the risk of abuse and harm. Staff knew their responsibility to report any concerns and were confident that action would be taken.
As the occupancy levels had increased at the home people and staff told us people sometimes had to wait for support. The registered manager told us that recent changes had been made to give more support at meal times and that new team leader roles had been introduced to organise and manage staff in a more effective way.
Staff were able to demonstrate they had sufficient knowledge and skills to carry out their roles effectively and to ensure people who used the service were supported.
The assessments of people’s capacity to consent had been completed. People’s rights and freedoms were respected by staff. Staff understood people’s individual care needs and had received training so they would be able to care for people in the best way for them.
People’s nutritional needs were met. People told us they enjoyed their food and were given a choice of meals and they were supported with drinks throughout the day.
People were supported to access health care professionals and staff were responsive to the advice received in providing care. People and relatives told us people’s privacy and dignity was maintained by caring staff and we made observations that supported this.
People’s access to activities and support varied across the homes three units. We found improvements were needed to support people living with dementia. Relatives said they would like more dementia appropriate activities as there was little for their family members to do and our observations supported this.
Relatives told us communication could be improved. We found communication of people’s changing care needs inconsistent and improvements were needed to ensure action was taken and communicated effectively to all staff.
The management team had systems in place to check the quality of the service provided and actions were planned where improvements were required. Some improvements had been implemented, for example, resident of the day reviews but further action was required to ensure that changes were embedded and also further improvements made in a timely way. Staff said they wanted more structured supervision and staff meetings to support them to provide more effective care.
Brook Court provides accommodation and personal and nursing care for a maximum of 65 people, some of whom may have dementia related illnesses. At the time of our inspection there were 46 people who lived there. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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 all the staff were caring and that staff were respectful and talked to them calmly. We observed many situations where care staff spoke kindly to people and maintained their dignity when providing assistance. People told us they were supported to remain independent and received assistance when they needed it.
People told us they found the senior management and registered manager approachable and told us they would raise any complaints or concerns should they need to. All the people we spoke with told us that they had never needed to complain or had anything to complain about. Through regular meetings and using an ‘open door’ policy we found that the registered manager promoted a positive culture, in which they invited people to talk with them about any concerns they may have. We found that when concerns were raised to the provider, the provider had acted promptly and appropriately.
We found that people were kept safe by trained staff who knew how to protect people. We found that people were cared for in a supportive way that did not restrict their freedom. The provider of Brook Court had carefully planned and designed the home and garden to ensure it was safe for people who had poor mobility or for those that lived with dementia. Adaptations to the garden ensured it was safe for people to use in a safe way. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.
Brook court opened in September 2013, the registered manager had managed the flow of admissions of people into the home. This meant the registered manager had sufficient time to recruit new staff and ensure induction training was underway. This ensured that safe numbers of suitably qualified staff were on duty. This meant that staff had time to get to know people. Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and respected their wishes. People we spoke with were complimentary about the food and their dining experience. Relatives spoke about the good support people were offered for those who required assistance. We observed people receiving regular drinks and staff supported those who needed assistance.
We found that the service was responsive towards people’s health needs. People told us they took part in activities that they enjoyed and that they were adapted to their choice.
We found the registered manager had systems in place to ensure that the quality of the care was monitored. Checks in areas such as medication and environment were carried out and completed monthly. Where there were any actions following these checks they were followed up and improvements were made.