CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brook House Care Home
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Brook House Care Home: inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on infection prevention and control. Inspectors also asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, arranging testing, managing visitors, admitting people safely and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
The home supported visits in different ways, including visits inside the home, window visits, telephone calls, video calls and a visiting pod. Staff also had access to weekly infection control advice and support.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a full quality rating for the home or ratings for most of the five areas CQC usually considers.
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened for COVID-19 symptoms, required to show a negative lateral flow test and required to wear PPE.
“All visitors were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 and were required to show a negative Lateral Flow Device (LFD) test result before they entered the service.” from the report
Infection control support
An infection prevention champion held weekly drop-in sessions so staff could get advice and update their training.
“The service's infection prevention champion held a weekly drop in session for staff.” from the report
Managing staff movement
Hand-held radios helped staff request assistance and reduced movement around the home during the outbreak.
“The use of these during the COVID-19 outbreak reduced staff movement through the service and enabled the registered manager to effectively deploy staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to sickness or COVID-19?
- 02What visiting arrangements are in place now, and how would visits work during an outbreak?
- 03How do you check that visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 04How often do staff receive infection prevention advice and training?
- 05Can we see the home's latest full CQC ratings and information about areas not covered by this inspection?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, January 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the service Requires Improvement on effectiveness because some records were incomplete.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection over 6 and 7 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff files, medicines records, training and safety records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, clean surroundings and prompt responses to call bells. People were treated with kindness, respect and dignity, and their choices were supported.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Some pre-admission assessments were incomplete. Records did not consistently show how best-interest decisions had been made or who had been involved. Care plans were not signed by people or their representatives. The manager said some best-interest information had been reviewed and completed after the inspection, but the report said these improvements needed to continue.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable staffing levels, assessed risks and prompt responses to call bells.
“Our observations during the inspection demonstrated that there were sufficient care staff on duty to provide people's care and that call bells were answered promptly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with patience, dignity and choice. Relatives and people spoke positively about the staff.
“Staff treated people with kindness, care and compassion.” from the report
Good health support
People could access health professionals when needed. Staff followed professional advice and understood people's health needs.
“People received support from healthcare professionals when needed and staff followed the advice they provided.” from the report
Visible management
The manager was approachable and involved in the day-to-day running of the home. Staff said they felt supported and able to raise concerns.
“The registered manager was visible, friendly, approachable and hands on, spending time talking to people and staff.” from the report
Incomplete information before admission
needs fixingSome pre-admission assessments did not contain all the information needed about people's needs and choices. This could make it harder for staff to have a complete picture when someone first moves in.
“We found some of the pre-admission assessments had not been fully completed.” from the report
Best-interest decisions not fully recorded
needs fixingAlthough staff understood the need for capacity assessments and supported people in the least restrictive way, records did not consistently explain why decisions had been made or who was involved.
“There was a lack of documented evidence of how or why decisions had been made in people's best interest or who had been involved in this process.” from the report
Consent records
minorCare plans were not signed by people or their representatives. Inspectors saw staff asking for consent during care, but recommended that consent should also be recorded.
“We recommend that the service review people's care plans to ensure documented consent for care is sought and recorded by people or their representative” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure pre-admission assessments contain complete information about a person's needs and choices?
- 02How are best-interest decisions recorded, including why the decision was made and who was involved?
- 03How do you record consent to care from the person or their representative?
- 04How often are individual and group activities provided, and how are they matched to each person's interests?
- 05How do your audits check that care records contain all the required information?
This was a comprehensive unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with follow-up telephone calls to relatives on 12 November 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 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 Brook House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 August 2012.
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.