CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brigstock House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with well-led care improved from Requires Improvement.
The inspection visit took place on 25 February 2020. One inspector reviewed care records, staff files and management records, and spoke with people, staff and health professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received medicines safely, had enough staff and were supported by trained staff.
The home supported choice, independence and communication, including for people who did not use speech. Care was personalised, and people were supported with health care, activities, family relationships and community outings. The overall rating stayed Good, while the Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Person-centred support
Care was planned around people's preferences, strengths and needs. Staff supported people to have choice, control and independence.
“People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff during the day and overnight. Recruitment checks, risk assessments, medicines systems and safeguarding arrangements were in place.
“Staff were available throughout the day and overnight in numbers sufficient to meet people's needs and to keep them safe.” from the report
Understanding communication
Staff knew how people communicated, including people who did not use speech. Communication aids and pictorial information helped people express choices and understand information.
“Staff understood how people expressed their choices. Communication aids were used to support this and care records provided information about people's expression and comprehension.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in varied activities, outings and holidays. Staff also helped people maintain relationships with relatives and friends.
“Staff supported people to participate in a range of activities including, cycling, bowling, arts and crafts, literacy, keep fit and table activities such as puzzles.” from the report
Improved leadership
The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors found stable leadership, regular checks and staff who felt supported.
“At this inspection, the service had a registered manager in post who was supported by a deputy manager.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you adapt the care plan to my relative's communication needs, especially if they do not use speech?
- 02What activities, outings and opportunities for independence would my relative be supported to take part in?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific health needs, including dental care, diet and appointments?
- 04How do you make sure medicines are given safely and that any 'when required' medicines are used correctly?
- 05How are relatives asked for their views, and how are concerns or complaints followed up?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the report says the previous overall rating was Good, while Well-led had previously been Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but leadership and quality checks still required improvement.
Inspectors carried out an announced, full inspection on 4 April 2017. They spoke with people living in the home, the manager and staff. They observed care, checked three care records, and reviewed medicines, staffing, training, safety and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Repairs and redecoration had been completed, staff training and supervision had improved, and records about accidents, incidents and notifications were better. People were supported by enough staff, received their medicines safely and were treated with kindness and respect.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because new quality checks and management arrangements had not yet been shown to work consistently over time.
Safe environment
Repairs and redecoration had been carried out. The home was clean, comfortably furnished and had safety checks in place.
“People were provided with a safe, clean and well maintained environment.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's communication needs and preferences. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, privacy and patience.
“Staff treated people with dignity, respect and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped shape their care and could choose activities, meals and how they spent their time. Care plans included their interests, beliefs and preferences.
“Care plans were developed with the person and were a reflection of their personalities, likes, dislikes and choices.” from the report
Health and medicines
People had access to healthcare professionals and health information. Medicines records checked by inspectors had no gaps or errors.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) we sampled were completed correctly with no gaps or errors.” from the report
Quality checks not yet established
needs fixingNew audits and checks had been introduced, but there had not been enough time to show that they were effective and sustainable.
“Some of these checks had been newly introduced so it was not possible to fully evaluate their effectiveness.” from the report
Management changes
needs fixingThere had been two manager changes in 12 months. The new manager was also responsible for another location, and some actions remained outstanding.
“There had been two changes of manager in the last twelve months.” from the report
Some risk assessments needed more detail
needs fixingThe format of some risk assessments used scores but did not give enough personal detail. The manager agreed to revise them.
“We noted the assessment information included a score rating and as a result, lacked personalisation.” from the report
One incident review was incomplete
needs fixingFor one person, inspectors could not see evidence of an investigation or a review of their care after an incident. The manager took immediate action.
“For one person, we were not able to see where an investigation had taken place or where a review of their care had occurred as a result.” from the report
One medicine protocol was limited
needs fixingInstructions for one person's as-needed medicine did not fully explain how staff should support their behaviour before giving it. The manager agreed to add details.
“We noted the protocol information for one person's medicine had limited directions for its administration.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's registration for this home now been completed, and how much time do they spend here compared with the other location?
- 02Have all care plans and risk assessments been rewritten in a fully personalised format?
- 03How are the new quality audits checked to make sure they lead to lasting improvements?
- 04How are accidents and incidents now investigated, reviewed and checked for patterns?
- 05Has the as-needed medicine protocol been updated with clear instructions for staff?
This was a full comprehensive inspection and a follow-up to compliance actions from the December 2015 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 2017 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 Brigstock House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.