CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brookfield Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Brookfield Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors found that the home had identified and managed COVID-19 risks. The home was clean and well ventilated, used cleaning schedules, disinfected high-touch areas and used protective equipment safely.
The home supported visits in line with changing government guidance. Visitors were tested, and professional visitors were asked for evidence of vaccination before entering.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Infection control
The home was clean and well ventilated. It used detailed cleaning schedules and regularly disinfected high-touch areas.
“The service was clean and well ventilated and had detailed cleaning schedules.” from the report
Managing COVID-19 risks
The manager had identified and managed COVID-19 risks affecting people, staff and visitors.
“The manager had identified, assessed and mitigated COVID-19 risks to people, staff and visitors.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home accommodated visits and adapted arrangements as government guidance changed. Visitors were tested before visits.
“Visits with relatives and friends were accommodated and adaptations made in response to the changing government guidelines.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received extra training during the pandemic, including training on protective equipment and infection prevention.
“Staff had received additional training during the pandemic including correct usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), donning and doffing and infection prevention and control measures.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and have they affected people's care?
- 02What cleaning schedules and checks are in place now, especially for high-touch areas?
- 03How do you currently test visitors and manage infection risks during visits?
- 04What training have staff received recently on protective equipment and infection prevention?
- 05Can you show us the home's latest full CQC ratings, as this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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, August 2019
Brookfield Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some care records and staffing arrangements needing attention.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 8 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives described kind, compassionate care. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed well, staff understood people's needs and the home was clean.
There were some areas to improve. Some care plans did not contain enough practical detail. An extra staff member was not yet consistently on shift, and records for applying creams were difficult to review quickly. The home remained Good overall, and its Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Kind and personal care
People and relatives consistently praised the kindness and compassion of staff. Inspectors saw that staff knew people well and treated them as individuals.
“People and relatives consistently said staff were kind and compassionate and treated them well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, given at the right times and checked regularly. Staff had training and their competence was assessed.
“Medicines were managed safely by the service. Medicines were stored securely, and the medicine management system was well organised.” from the report
Good food and support
People had a choice of meals and inspectors found the food tasty and appetising. Staff supported people at mealtimes when needed.
“The mealtime experience was pleasant and inclusive with staff providing people with support when required.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could take part in activities and outings based on their interests. Their suggestions and wishes were used to shape activities and improvements.
“People had access to a good range of activities and opportunities according to people's choices, including crafts, musical events and weekly visits by a 'pat' dog.” from the report
Responsive management
People could raise concerns and inspectors found complaints had been investigated and resolved. The management team was described as approachable and willing to listen.
“Any complaints had been fully investigated and resolved to the complainant's satisfaction.” from the report
Staffing consistency
needs fixingInspectors judged staffing levels sufficient overall, but an additional staff member was not consistently on shift. The home said this would improve after new staff completed induction.
“The registered manager was aware of this and an extra staff member had been authorised to work each day, although at the time of the inspection this was not consistently in place.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingMost care records were useful, but some did not give staff enough practical guidance. Oral care was one example raised with the manager.
“However, some care plans needed more details to guide staff.” from the report
Cream application records
minorElectronic records for topical medicines such as creams were difficult to check quickly. The manager planned to bring back paper records while reviewing the electronic system.
“The way information was collated on the system meant it was difficult to quickly review when creams had been applied.” from the report
End of life plans
needs fixingSome people's end of life plans were generic rather than personal. Inspectors said people's wishes and choices should be explored earlier and recorded more clearly.
“However, other people's end of life care plans were generic and needed to be more person-centred.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure the additional staff member is consistently on shift, especially when staff are busy?
- 02What practical detail is now included in care plans for oral care and other individual needs?
- 03How do you record and check when topical medicines, such as creams, have been applied?
- 04How do you record each person's personal end of life wishes and choices?
- 05How are safeguarding concerns logged and reviewed for wider themes and trends?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 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 Brookfield Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.