CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brockshill Woodlands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks such as falls and pressure sores were assessed and managed. They also found enough staff, safe recruitment checks and safe medicines systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff had induction, ongoing training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink and access to healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and life histories. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open and supportive leadership, regular audits and action when shortfalls were found. Staff, people and relatives were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Brockshill Woodlands is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 October 2022. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, daily records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments, appropriate training and good access to healthcare.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans were personalised, and people were supported with activities, hobbies, family relationships and communication needs. The home had systems for checking quality and acting on problems.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches of Regulation 12 and Regulation 17. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach. The inspection was prompted partly by a death, but the circumstances of that incident were not examined in this inspection and remain subject to further investigation.
Risk management
The home assessed risks and took steps to reduce avoidable harm. Inspectors saw examples involving falls and pressure sores.
“Risks to people were assessed and action taken to the reduce risks.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
People and staff said there were enough staff. Medicines were managed safely, with staff training, checks and electronic alerts for missed doses or discrepancies.
“Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and welcoming. Staff understood people's preferences and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff were caring and compassionate. People were treated with respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, social and cultural needs and personal preferences. People could follow hobbies and maintain important relationships.
“Each person had an individual care plan which was personalised and set out the way they wanted care and support.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What changes have been made to falls and risk-management procedures since the incident mentioned in the report?
- 02How will you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, such as falls, pressure sores, malnutrition or dehydration?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given at the right time and that missed doses or recording problems are dealt with promptly?
- 04How will you support my relative's hobbies, communication needs, family relationships and preferred activities?
- 05How are care plans reviewed with the person and their family, especially if their health or preferences change?
This was an unannounced inspection that rated all five key questions, but it did not examine the circumstances of the death that prompted part of the inspection; that matter remained subject to further investigation. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 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.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but risks, meals and management checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with six people, one relative and six staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff training and records about the building and management.
People said they felt safe and staff were generally kind. Medicines were managed safely, people could access healthcare, complaints were handled properly and activities were available. However, inspectors found risks linked to infection control, food safety, care planning, mealtimes and the building.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. The report says there was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The provider was in breach of Regulation 12 on safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 on good governance.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, managed and disposed of safely. People received them when they needed them.
“Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely and people received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Kind relationships
People described staff as kind and polite. Inspectors saw staff showing patience, warmth and humour.
“We observed shared smiles and laughter, staff demonstrated kindness and were patient with people.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home worked with health and social care professionals. Records showed regular professional involvement when people needed it.
“Records showed regular input from healthcare professionals when needed and staff had worked in partnership with other professionals such as GP's, social workers and occupational therapists.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could receive visitors, join activities and take part in trips and events. Activities included games, crafts and options for people with dementia or sensory impairments.
“There were a range of activities for people including games and crafts.” from the report
Infection and food safety
seriousInspectors found poor infection control, rubbish and used items in the garden, and kitchen cleaning problems. Some food was past its use-by date or stored incorrectly.
“This meant people were at risk of becoming ill from the food they ate.” from the report
Risks were not fully planned
seriousSome care plans did not tell staff clearly when to seek medical help or how often to check people's health. Inspectors also found second-floor windows opening wider than recommended.
“This meant there was a potential risk staff could miss signs of people's health deteriorating.” from the report
Unsafe mealtime support
seriousOne person with swallowing risks was rushed while eating and encouraged to drink with food still in their mouth. Another person was missed and did not receive lunch until inspectors intervened.
“We saw a staff member was rushing the person to eat and encouraging drinks while their mouth was full.” from the report
Dignity and personal care
seriousPeople said staff did not always knock before entering their rooms. Inspectors also found that one person had not received appropriate support with a personal care task.
“One person had not been supported appropriately with a personal care task, this did not promote dignity for this person and posed an infection control risk.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's audits and records checks had not found the safety and quality problems identified during the inspection. The provider was in breach of the good governance regulation.
“The provider had insufficient oversight of the service to ensure people received safe care.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make mealtimes organised, ensure nobody is missed and provide safe support for people with swallowing difficulties?
- 02How have you improved infection control, kitchen cleaning, food storage and checks on use-by dates?
- 03How are individual health risks recorded now, including when staff must seek medical help and how often checks are needed?
- 04What has been done to improve support for people's communication, cultural food needs and end of life wishes?
- 05How does the provider now check that safety and quality problems are identified and fixed promptly?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 November 2019 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 Brockshill Woodlands
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
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 20 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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with 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.