CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brewery House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visits and the handling of possible outbreaks. They signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 28 April 2021. It focused on how the home prevented and controlled infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, arranged testing, followed social distancing and shielding guidance, and kept its infection control policy up to date.
The home had remained free from COVID-19. Staff used easy-read information to explain the pandemic and vaccination, carried out extra cleaning of frequently touched areas, and supported visits and video calls.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for the five areas of care.
COVID-19 prevention
The home had remained free from COVID-19 and was following national testing guidance for people and staff.
“The service has remained free from COVID-19.” from the report
Clear information
Staff used easy-read information to explain hand hygiene, the pandemic and vaccination. They also supported a person who was anxious about needles.
“Staff used various methods to communicate with people about the pandemic, and how to keep safe.” from the report
Keeping in touch
Relatives were updated about visiting guidance. People were supported to have face-to-face calls using technology when relatives could not visit.
“Where relatives, due to their own circumstances could not visit, people were supported to have face to face calls using technology.” from the report
Cleaning and testing
Staff carried out extra cleaning of high-touch areas and had been trained to carry out and process rapid tests.
“Staff had been trained to carry out, and process the quick 30 minute lateral flow test correctly.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not say what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control changes have been made since the inspection?
- 02How are people and staff tested for infections now?
- 03How do you support visits and contact with relatives under current guidance?
- 04Which areas of care were not covered by this inspection, and when were they last assessed?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 2021 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, March 2020
Brewery House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in safety monitoring and rated well-led Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 February 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with the manager and two support workers, and checked care records, recruitment files, training records and quality records. The inspector could not speak directly with the two residents because of their complex needs.
People were protected from abuse and there were enough staff. Staff supported people with medicines, food, healthcare, activities and daily choices. Inspectors saw kind and respectful care, and found that people were supported to build independence and take part in community life.
Inspectors found risks from unguarded radiators and unrestricted windows had not been identified by the home's checks. Immediate action was taken after the inspection, but the systems for checking safety were not strong enough. The overall rating stayed Good, while well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, choices and independence.
“People were treated with genuine care and we observed positive interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, including community activities, holidays and entertainment. Support focused on helping people gain skills and become more independent.
“People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities they were interested in such as drama groups, shopping, holidays and access to entertainment of their choice.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received training and support relevant to people's needs, including autism awareness, epilepsy and medicines. Medicines competence was checked regularly.
“Staff completed training to administer medicines and their competency was checked regularly.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with health and social care professionals and arranged specialist support when needed. People had health action plans and their health was monitored.
“Staff worked with health and social care professionals to make sure people's needs were met.” from the report
Safety risks were missed
seriousInspectors found risks of burns or scalds from unguarded radiators and falls from unrestricted windows. The manager acted immediately, but the home's checks had not found these risks beforehand.
“We identified a lack of risk assessment and management monitoring in relation to the risk of burns and scalds from hot surfaces such as unguarded radiators and the risk of falls from unrestricted windows.” from the report
Management checks were not strong enough
needs fixingQuality audits did not identify the safety problems before the inspection. This led to the well-led rating falling from Good to Requires Improvement.
“Provider auditing processes needed to be more robust.” from the report
Some care planning needed updating
needs fixingSome care plans had not been reviewed or updated to reflect changing needs. Ask how this is now checked.
“However, we noted some care planning had not been reviewed or updated to reflect changing needs.” from the report
Future end-of-life wishes
minorThere was limited information about people's cultural, spiritual and personal wishes if there was a sudden death or a need for palliative care.
“There was limited information to evidence people's preferences and choices had been explored in relation to their end of life and ensure their cultural and spiritual needs would be met.” from the report
- 01Have window restrictors been installed and are the radiator safeguards still in place?
- 02How do you now check that safety audits identify risks before they affect residents?
- 03Have all care plans been reviewed and updated when people's needs change?
- 04Has the new medicines cabinet been installed and is it large enough for all prescribed medicines?
- 05How are residents' cultural, spiritual and personal wishes recorded for sudden death or end-of-life care?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good, but well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2020 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 Brewery House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 October 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.