CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brierfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Medicines, safeguarding, risk assessments, recruitment and infection control were found to be managed safely, although minor recruitment record improvements were needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support they needed. People received help with eating, drinking and healthcare, and the service followed the Mental Capacity Act. Improvements to the dementia unit were planned but had been delayed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, caring and respectful. Staff supported people's privacy, dignity, independence, choices and diverse needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, risks, abilities and preferences and were updated when needed. Activities, communication support, visits and complaints processes were in place, although some end of life wishes were recorded only briefly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and staff understood their responsibilities and used audits, meetings and feedback to improve the service. The manager was not registered with CQC at the time, but was applying to become registered.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Brierfield House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still planned.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 13 May 2021. An inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and infection control arrangements.
Inspectors found that people were safe and that medicines, staffing, risk management and infection control were handled well. Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care plans were detailed and personalised, and people received support with food, healthcare, communication, activities and relationships.
All five areas were rated Good. This is an improvement from the previous Requires Improvement rating published in November 2019. The report says the new provider had addressed earlier problems with medicines and oversight, so there were no breaches of regulations at this inspection.
Safe medicines and care
Inspectors found that medicines were given safely and that staff understood how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
“People's medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as and when they should.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors also saw staff being patient, friendly and respectful.
“People and relatives liked the staff at the home. They told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, risks, abilities and preferences. Staff knew people well and offered choices.
“People's care plans were detailed and individualised. They included information about people's needs, risks, abilities and preferences and were updated regularly or when people's needs changed.” from the report
Good food and healthcare support
People had choices at mealtimes and were referred for specialist help when needed. Staff also supported people to access healthcare services.
“People told us they liked the meals provided at the home and records showed they were given lots of choice at mealtimes.” from the report
Improvements under the new provider
The report says the home had improved since the new provider took over. Earlier breaches about medicines and oversight had been resolved.
“At this inspection we found that under the new provider, improvements had been made and there were no longer any breaches of regulations.” from the report
Dementia unit environment
minorThe decoration and furniture in the dementia unit still needed improvement. Refurbishment was planned but had been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
“However, some improvements to the decoration and furniture on the unit for people living with dementia were needed.” from the report
Occasional odours upstairs
minorInspectors noticed odours on the upper floor during some visits. The manager said this would be addressed.
“On some occasions during our visits, we noticed odours on the upper floor.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThe manager had not yet been registered with CQC. An application was in progress, but it had been delayed because of a misunderstanding about the process.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the planned refurbishment of the unit for people living with dementia?
- 02What action was taken about the odours noticed on the upper floor?
- 03How will you make sure each person's end of life wishes are discussed, recorded and kept up to date?
- 04Has the manager's application to become registered with CQC been completed?
- 05How do you decide where staff who move between the two units are most needed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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.
Every inspection of Brierfield House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 March 2020.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.