CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brook Meadows House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Medicines, recruitment, staffing, equipment training and infection control were found to be safe, although accident and incident information was not being analysed for patterns.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support, and people were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and daily living skills. Inspectors recommended that mental capacity assessments should cover one specific decision at a time.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives generally said staff were kind, respectful and caring. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and dignity, although relatives gave mixed feedback about involvement in care plans and communication.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's preferences, communication needs and support requirements. Activities and visits were available, but relatives gave mixed views about whether everyone was included in activities and how complaints were handled.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive atmosphere and staff felt supported, but management systems did not identify some concerns found by inspectors. Relatives were not always involved or consulted regularly, and communication needed improvement.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the well-led rating Requires Improvement because some quality checks did not identify concerns.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. Inspectors visited unannounced on 18 January 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were generally safe, treated with kindness and dignity, supported to eat and drink, and given personalised care. Medicines, staffing, training and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. The home had audits and an improvement plan, but these did not identify some concerns about accident analysis, mental capacity records and involvement of relatives. Inspectors made recommendations, but did not report any breached regulations.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that people were safe. Staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns.
“People told us they felt safe. One person said, "I feel safe here, I am happy with everything.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People were happy and relaxed in the company of staff. People told us staff treated them well and they felt respected.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures and protective equipment were being used effectively.
“We carried out checks of boxed medicines held on the medicines trollies and the amount in the boxes reconciled with the total amount recorded on the Medication Administration Records (MAR).” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and needs. Staff supported people with communication, activities, food choices and daily living skills.
“People's care plans were person centred. They considered aspects of people's care, including preferred name, health, mobility, personal care and nutrition and hydration.” from the report
Quality checks missed issues
needs fixingThe home's audits did not identify some concerns found during the inspection, including problems with accident and incident analysis. Inspectors recommended improving how incidents are reviewed for patterns and themes.
“some of the concerns identified on the day of inspection had not been picked up by the registered manager's quality assurance processes.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity forms covered several decisions at once rather than recording one specific decision at a time. Inspectors recommended using up-to-date forms and decision-specific assessments.
“we found multiple decisions ticked for people on 1 form, rather than 1 specific decision assessed and discussed at any one time.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorSome relatives said they were not involved in care plans or were not told about changes promptly. The manager said monthly telephone calls would be introduced after the inspection.
“Communication from staff is hit and miss. We are not always told what happens when it happens, but I find out eventually they may just be busy.” from the report
Uneven mealtime experience
minorThe ground floor mealtime was more socially engaging than the first floor. On the first floor, noise and the way meals were organised made it harder for people to engage and enjoy the meal.
“There appeared to be less attention paid to the people in the dining area and due to the noise levels made it difficult for people to engage socially and fully enjoy the experience.” from the report
- 01How are you now analysing accidents and incidents to identify trends and prevent them happening again?
- 02Are mental capacity assessments now completed for one specific decision at a time?
- 03How will you keep relatives involved in care planning and update them promptly about changes?
- 04What has changed to improve the first-floor mealtime experience and reduce noise?
- 05How do you check that people are being included in activities in ways that suit them?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; there were no earlier ratings to carry forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2023 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 Meadows House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 February 2022.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.