CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brook House Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, recruitment, staffing, medicines, risk management, emergency and infection control arrangements. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and supported, and people received suitable food and help with healthcare. Staff followed the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and compassionate. People and relatives were involved in care decisions, and privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication needs were considered. People were supported with relationships, activities, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Some care records and personal emergency evacuation plans were not consistently accurate or complete. The home had quality checks and action plans, but the improvements to records were still in progress.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good overall, but Well-led Requires Improvement because some care records were incomplete or inconsistent.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 and 26 September 2018. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care plans, staff records, policies, audits, complaints and safety records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, kind care, suitable support with food and healthcare, personalised care plans, activities and complaint handling.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Some records were incomplete, inconsistent, unsigned or difficult to read. The provider was updating records after taking over the home in October 2017. There was no registered manager in post, although the home manager had applied for registration.
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on each unit to meet people's needs safely and without rushing care. Staff absences were usually covered by permanent or internal bank staff.
“There were enough staff on duty to support people safely and in a timely manner.” from the report
Kind care
Staff treated people with respect and compassion. Inspectors saw friendly interactions and people being supported with privacy and dignity.
“People were supported by staff that were kind, respectful and compassionate towards them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, routines and goals. Staff supported communication, cultural and religious needs without discrimination.
“Each care plan included information on the support people required with the various aspects of care and provided staff with guidance on how these needs should be met safely.” from the report
Activities
People were offered group and one-to-one activities, including music, art, shopping and reminiscence. Inspectors saw people taking part and enjoying activities.
“People were supported to participate in activities that interested or stimulated them.” from the report
Joined-up healthcare
The home worked with GPs and other health and social care professionals. Referrals were made promptly when needed.
“Healthcare professionals told us staff were to be commended for following their recommendations and referring people promptly where required.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome care plans were handwritten and were not always complete, consistent, signed or easy to read. The provider was updating them, but inspectors could not confirm that all records were consistently maintained.
“Records were not always complete, consistent, signed and legible as some care plans had been handwritten.” from the report
Training and supervision
needs fixingSome staff refresher training was overdue. Supervision had not always taken place as regularly as the provider's policy required, although the manager was taking action.
“However, some staff training required updating. The manager was aware of staff whose refresher training was outstanding and had reminded them to complete their training within a specific time frame.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of inspection. The home manager had applied to become the registered manager.
“There was no registered manager in post. The home manager was in the process of applying to become the registered manager.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans now been reviewed, signed and checked for consistency?
- 02How are personal emergency evacuation plans kept accurate when a person's mobility, cognition or mental health changes?
- 03Has all overdue staff refresher training been completed, and how is this checked?
- 04Are staff now receiving supervision as regularly as the provider's policy requires?
- 05Has the home manager become the registered manager, or what is the current position of the application?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC question areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 2018 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 Brook House Care Centre
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 October 2017.
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 Greenwich
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 £1,250 a week. 87 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”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.