The Care Quality Commission
  • Mental Health
  • NHS mental health service

Archived: Brockfield House

Kemble Way, Runwell Chase, Wickford, Essex, SS11 7FE 0300 123 0808

Provided and run by:
South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust

Important: This service is now managed by a different provider - see new profile

All Inspections

Other CQC inspections of services

Community & mental health inspection reports for Brockfield House can be found at South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. Each report covers findings for one service across multiple locations
Read inspection report

10, 11 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited Fuji, Causeway, Dune, Forest and Lagoon wards, where we spoke with 19 people using the service and 17 staff. We received positive feedback from the people using the service. One person told us. 'These people have saved my life. If it were not for these people my children would not have a mum. The ward manager and deputy make a great team. They have equipped me through behavioural therapy with the ability to weigh up situations and work through a crisis'. One person said, 'I am making progress and I now have unescorted leave, I am involved with my care plan and I know my keyworker'.

We found that the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs and well led. The interactions between people using the service and staff were positive; similarly the manner in which staff spoke about and wrote about people was positive and respectful. We saw that people experienced compassionate care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We found that people were cared for by staff that were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

29 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited Aurora, Alpine and Fuji wards and spoke with one patient on each ward. The patients on Aurora and Alpine wards were happy with their care. They both said that the activities were good and tailored to their needs. They said they were regularly read their rights, that staff treated them well and that there were usually enough staff on duty. They said they received regular section 17 leave. Advocacy services were available and were frequently present on the ward to assist them.

A patient on Fuji ward was not as happy. They felt that staff were often 'snappy', which they found upsetting, and that this was caused by staff being 'stressed'. They said that there were not enough staff and a lot of bank staff were used, particularly at weekends. Activities and section 17 leave were often cancelled because of staff shortages. They felt this was annoying and led to incidents because they were not getting the structure they required. They felt that the food did not offer a balanced diet and that there were no alternative choices to red meat, other than a vegetarian option, although they spoke positively about different food events that were held on the ward. We raised these matters with senior staff at the time of our inspection. We discussed the tailored activities that were available on Fuji ward and how staff were supported. We were told that it is not normal for there to be staff shortages on that ward. The various food options for patients were also discussed.

8 March 2012

During a routine inspection

Everybody with whom we spoke commented fairly positively about their care and treatment. They were all aware of the medication they were receiving and what it was for. They told us that they knew who their key nurse was and confirmed they had regular meetings with them and that these meetings were flexible. They all said they felt they were listened to and given the opportunity to express their view. Although it was clear that people were actively involved and included in their clinical meetings all of those with whom we spoke were vague about their involvement in the development of their care plan.

Everybody with whom we spoke said that the staff at Brockfield House were supportive and approachable. Most people told us that they felt safe and those who did not feel safe due to fellow patients felt assured that staff were always quick to intervene and address any areas of concern if they occurred.

Several people commented on the usefulness of the advocacy service. One person told us that their health was improving; they had an advocate and were applying for a tribunal.

Another person who had been at Brockfield House since it opened in November 2009 and was due to be discharged very soon told us that the staff had got the balance between risk issues/ease of access and choice 'about right' and that there was 'loads to do'.

People's experiences of therapies and activities were varied. One person told us that after four years the therapy groups, which consist of pottery, cooking and card making, are mundane and that there were currently no trained staff to support patients in the gym. This person spoke positively about the relaxation therapy to music sessions provided by the resident social worker.

Another person, soon to be discharged, spoke enthusiastically about their forthcoming maths exam.

One person told us that it took approximately eight months from referral to the commencement of psychology services and that it was only with the intervention of their advocate that this was now happening. Another person told us that access to vocational training (English and maths) 'was not happening' and another patient said that there were not enough activities and that they often felt bored.