CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brockington House Care Community
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some care plans and risk assessments did not give staff enough current information about falls, pressure ulcers or wounds. Medicines were mostly stored safely, but some prescribed thickener was not secured and not all PRN medicines had administration protocols.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff received induction and mandatory training, and people were supported with food, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as caring and friendly. Inspectors observed kind, respectful and patient support, with people's privacy, dignity and choices respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff considered people's preferences and supported activities, hobbies, garden access and contact with loved ones. Complaints were addressed, although the complaints process was not prominently displayed and records did not always follow the provider's policy.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks did not always show that problems had been investigated or actions completed. The home was not using accident, incident and complaint information well enough to identify patterns and reduce risks.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Brockington House Care Community was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but important gaps in risk records and management checks.
This was the first comprehensive inspection since the home registered. Inspectors visited on 13 and 16 June 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records and management systems.
People generally said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Inspectors found good care in the effective, caring and responsive areas. Staff supported people's choices, access to healthcare, activities and contact with relatives.
However, some care plans and risk assessments were incomplete or out of date. Medicines records were not always complete, and systems for analysing incidents and checking improvements were not strong enough. The overall rating and the ratings for Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement, meaning there were safety and management weaknesses that needed fixing.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring and friendly. Inspectors observed staff offering patient, respectful support and reassurance.
“We observed and heard staff to be kind, respectful and patient.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in everyday decisions, including when to get up, what to wear and where to eat. Staff encouraged people to remain independent.
“People made choices about their care, such as the time they wanted to get up and where they wanted to eat.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home supported hobbies, garden access and activities. It also arranged Skype in bedrooms during lockdown so people could keep in touch with loved ones.
“The registered manager arranged for skype to be activated in people's bedrooms so they could keep in contact with loved ones during lockdown.” from the report
Recruitment and training
Staff recruitment checks were completed before employment. Staff had induction, shadowing and mandatory training, including safeguarding and moving and handling.
“Staff were recruited safely, for example obtaining references and DBS checks before starting employment.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, supported testing and visitors, and had measures to prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments did not clearly explain the support people needed. This included falls, pressure ulcers and wound care.
“Care plans and risk assessments were not always comprehensive or up to date.” from the report
Weak incident monitoring
seriousThe home recorded accidents and incidents but did not analyse them for patterns and trends. This reduced its ability to prevent similar incidents.
“there was no analysis of trends or patterns. This meant the provider lacked oversight to learn from such incidents.” from the report
Medicines procedures
seriousPrescribed thickener was not securely stored, and not all people who had PRN medicines had clear instructions for when and how those medicines should be given.
“Where residents had been prescribed medication on an "as and when" (PRN) basis, we found that not all people had protocols in place for the administration of these.” from the report
Quality checks and fire drills
needs fixingAudits did not always show that problems had been investigated or fully resolved. A recent fire drill also found that staff had not responded effectively.
“A recent fire drill identified that staff had not responded effectively” from the report
Complaints information
minorThe complaints procedure was not prominently displayed, and complaint records did not always follow the provider's policy.
“However, the procedure for raising a complaint was not prominently displayed within the home.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans and risk assessments for falls, pressure ulcers and wound care since this inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure PRN medicine protocols are in place and prescribed thickener is stored securely?
- 03How are accidents and incidents analysed for patterns, and how do you check that actions to reduce risk are completed?
- 04What changes have been made to fire drills, including varying the time so all staff can take part?
- 05Where can residents and relatives see the complaints procedure, and how are complaints now recorded and followed up?
This was the first comprehensive inspection since registration and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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 Brockington House Care Community
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Brockington House Care Community →
- July 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 July 2019.
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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.