CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brentwood Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found staffing, risk records and management oversight were not reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 22 March 2023. Inspectors looked at whether the home was safe, responsive and well-led because safeguarding concerns and concerns about management oversight had increased.
Inspectors found people sometimes waited for care because there were not enough staff available at the right times. Risk assessments, care records and monitoring charts were not always accurate or complete. Medicines were sometimes given later because staff were interrupted, and some training was out of date.
There were also improvements. Activities had increased since the last inspection, relatives felt involved, and people and staff spoke positively about the new interim manager. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The home was asked to make improvements and provide an action plan.
More activities
The home had appointed an activities coordinator and people were taking part in a wider range of pastimes suited to their preferences.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made improvements and people were being supported with a wider range of activities.” from the report
Positive management feedback
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the new interim manager and said the atmosphere and support had improved.
“People and relatives spoke positively about the new manager and recent improvements in the service.” from the report
Safeguarding follow-up
The home tracked safeguarding concerns, worked with the local authority and shared information with the relevant authorities when required.
“The provider was able to demonstrate clear oversight of each concern and outcome and had notified CQC in line with their regulatory responsibilities.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in regular contact with friends and relatives, who were welcomed when visiting.
“People were supported to maintain regular contact with friends and family.” from the report
Staffing delays
seriousPeople sometimes waited for personal and continence care because staff were busy elsewhere. Inspectors said the dependency tool did not reliably ensure enough staff were available promptly.
“People and their relatives told us there was not always enough staff available to support people in a timely manner.” from the report
Incomplete risk records
seriousSome risk assessments gave conflicting instructions, and records of weight, oral care and fluid intake had significant gaps. This meant inspectors could not be assured that people received the right support for their health needs.
“People's risk assessments were not always detailed, and some information was contradictory.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe home's systems did not reliably monitor staffing, care records, training, recruitment paperwork and legal authorisations. Problems continued to be found after they had already been identified.
“The provider's processes for monitoring the quality and safety of the service were not always effective.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans did not always show people's individual preferences, and some guidance conflicted. End of life plans had improved but still lacked detail.
“People's care plans were not always personalised to reflect their individual preferences.” from the report
Medicines took longer
needs fixingStaff were interrupted during medicines rounds and called away to other duties. This made it take longer for some people to receive their medicines.
“This impacted on their ability to concentrate solely on administration and meant it took longer for people to receive their medicines.” from the report
Activities were not consistent
needs fixingActivities improved when the activities coordinator was present, but care notes showed less engagement when that person was on annual leave.
“People's care notes evidenced a lack of engagement and interaction when the activities coordinator was on annual leave.” from the report
- 01What has changed in staffing numbers and deployment since the inspection, especially during personal care, mealtimes and medicines rounds?
- 02How do you now check that risk assessments and care plans are accurate, consistent and personalised?
- 03How do you make sure daily records, fluid charts, weight checks and oral healthcare records are completed and checked?
- 04What action has been taken to ensure staff training, including moving and handling, fire safety, learning disability and autism training, is up to date?
- 05How are activities maintained when the activities coordinator is absent?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; the report says ratings for the other key questions were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but activities and some care planning required improvement.
Inspectors visited without warning on 25 and 26 May 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff supported people with medicines, eating, drinking, health needs and personal care. Inspectors saw kind and respectful care, and found that management and quality checks had improved.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Activities were very limited during the visit, despite the home having interactive equipment. Some end of life care plans did not contain enough information, and other care records were difficult to navigate. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good.
Safe care
Risk assessments were personalised and regularly reviewed. Staff understood how to protect people and use equipment safely.
“People's care plans and risk assessments were personalised around their individual circumstances and needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and dignity during personal care and meals.
“People were treated with respect when they required personal care.” from the report
Support with eating and health
Mealtimes had improved since the previous inspection. Staff adapted food and support to people's needs and helped people access health professionals.
“Mealtimes were enjoyable and sociable occasions.” from the report
Improved management
The registered manager had stabilised the service and introduced clearer oversight. Audits showed actions and timescales for improvements.
“Regular audits took place to check on the quality of the care and accommodation.” from the report
Dementia support
The home had invested in equipment and appointed a dementia specialist. Inspectors saw a person meaningfully involved in a library-related task.
“The provider had invested a lot of money in sourcing interactive equipment to enhance the life of people living with dementia.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingInspectors saw very little activity engagement on the inspection days. Interactive equipment was not being used fully, and staff said they lacked time for wellbeing activities.
“Unfortunately, on the day of our inspection there was not a staff member available to support people to use the device.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingAlthough care plans were reviewed, records were difficult to navigate. This could make it harder for staff to find the most up to date information.
“However, records were hard to navigate and needed streamlining to ensure staff always had the most relevant up to date information.” from the report
- 01What regular meaningful activities are now available, especially for people living with dementia?
- 02How do you make sure interactive equipment is used by people who may benefit from it?
- 03How are end of life wishes and care needs recorded, reviewed and shared with staff and families?
- 04How do you make sure staff can quickly find the most relevant and up to date information in care records?
- 05What staffing arrangements provide time for conversation and wellbeing support as well as care tasks?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, with the previous overall rating of Requires Improvement reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 July 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Brentwood Care Centre
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2022Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.