CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brookdale Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing levels were sufficient, recruitment checks were carried out and medicines were handled safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and worked with healthcare professionals. People were supported with food, drink, health appointments and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw staff knock before entering rooms and support people's independence, although some communal bathrooms and toilets did not have locks.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and changing needs, and people were supported with activities, relationships and end of life care. Two people said they sometimes got up later than they wished.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, improving staff morale, good teamwork and quality checks. However, no recent surveys had been sent to people at the time of the inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Brookdale Nursing Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some minor privacy and involvement issues to check.
Inspectors visited without notice on 14 and 15 January 2020. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also checked care records, medicines, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and good support with food, health appointments and personal care.
The inspection found clear improvements since the previous inspection, when the overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring, Responsive and Well-led had each improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors still noted that some communal toilets and bathrooms did not have locks, two people said they were sometimes helped out of bed later than they wanted, and no recent surveys had been sent to people.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood abuse risks and how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe and supported by the staff who worked in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people as individuals, respected their dignity and supported their independence. Inspectors saw calm and friendly interactions.
“We saw all staff supported people in a dignified way, and respected and promoted their privacy.” from the report
Personalised support
Care planning had improved. Staff knew people's preferences and responded when people's health or support needs changed.
“At this inspection we found this had improved.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had a registered manager, and people and staff described improvements in how it was run. Staff said the manager listened to their views.
“All people, relatives and staff felt the registered manager had made positive improvements to the home and the way the service was run.” from the report
Locks on communal bathrooms
needs fixingSome communal bathrooms and toilets did not have locks. The manager said this would be put right, but the report does not confirm that it had already happened.
“We found that some communal bathrooms and toilets did not have locks on them to enable people to maintain their privacy.” from the report
Preferred getting-up times
minorMost people said they could get up and go to bed when they wished, but two people said they were sometimes helped up later than they wanted. The manager was asked to discuss this further.
“Two people told us this did not happen and they got up later in the morning than they wished.” from the report
Recent feedback surveys
minorThe provider used surveys, but no recent surveys had been sent to people when inspectors visited. Ask how the home now gathers and acts on wider feedback.
“The provider did send surveys to people who used the service, however at the time of our inspection, no recent surveys had been sent to people.” from the report
- 01Have locks now been fitted to all communal bathrooms and toilets, and how do you check that people's privacy is protected?
- 02How do you record and monitor each person's preferred getting-up and bedtime routine?
- 03How do you make sure people who prefer to stay in their rooms still receive enough social contact and activities?
- 04When was the most recent survey sent to people and relatives, and what changes were made as a result?
- 05What improvements have been completed since the previous inspection, and which plans are still in progress?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 2020 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 Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe and effective care, but problems with dignity, activities, care records and management.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 18 December 2018, followed by a return visit on 19 December to review quality checks. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, safety checks and other documents.
People generally felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risks and medicines, and people had access to health professionals. However, some infection control practice was poor, and staffing arrangements and the use of agency staff did not always help shifts run smoothly.
Inspectors found that people were not always treated with dignity or given their preferred choices. Some wore other people's clothes, staff sometimes entered bedrooms without knocking, activities were limited and care records did not always give staff accurate information. The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Effective remained Good, while Caring, Responsive and Well-led became Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People generally said they felt safe, and staff understood how to report abuse and manage risks.
“People continued to feel safe. Almost everyone told us, "I feel safe having people around.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff, with checks on administration, storage and time-critical medicines.
“People received their medicines safely by trained staff and regular checks on administration and storage ensured medicines were given safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw some staff being patient and reassuring. People and relatives also spoke positively about some staff.
“On both inspection visits we saw some staff interactions with people were kind and patient.” from the report
Healthcare support
People received support from GPs and other healthcare professionals, including district nurses, speech and language therapists and dieticians.
“People had access to other healthcare organisations.” from the report
Privacy and personal belongings
needs fixingSome staff entered bedrooms without knocking. Laundry was poorly managed, so people sometimes wore other people's clothes and clothing was moved in black bin bags.
“Relatives, people and staff told us the laundry situation had become so mismanaged, people wore other people's clothing and it had become accepted practice.” from the report
Limited activities and choice
needs fixingPeople were sometimes left with little to do and did not always get their preferred routines, activities, seating or opportunities to go outside.
“People and relatives expressed disappointment with the level of activities in the home and during our visits, we saw people were left for periods of time, with limited stimulation or activities to interest them and keep them occupied.” from the report
Inaccurate or incomplete records
seriousSome care records and handovers did not accurately describe people's needs. Repositioning records did not consistently show the support provided, which could put one person at unnecessary risk.
“Repositioning records showed the person was not repositioned at consistent intervals, plus, staff had not recorded how they had re-positioned the person such as on their right side, left side or their back.” from the report
Management and oversight
needs fixingThere was no registered manager, and communication between staff was inconsistent. Some audits were not available for inspectors to review, and some issues had not been identified by the home's own checks.
“There was no registered manager in post.” from the report
Infection control practice
seriousInspectors saw soiled nightwear being moved without suitable protective measures. Other staff corrected the practice, but the incident showed a potential risk of cross infection.
“During our first visit, we saw a staff member moved soiled nightwear in their hands and without the appropriate infection control measures in place, such as gloves and red linen bags.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure staff knock before entering bedrooms and people are treated with dignity?
- 02How do you now label, sort and return people's clothes, and how have you stopped clothing being moved in black bin bags?
- 03What activities, trips and garden access are now available, and how are residents' individual interests recorded and followed?
- 04How do you check that care plans and handovers accurately reflect each person's current needs?
- 05Has a registered manager now been appointed, and how do you monitor communication, staff deployment and quality checks?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with a return visit to review quality assurance systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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 Brookdale Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Inspected but not ratedEffective: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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 Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“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.