CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brookfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough trained staff. Medicines systems were generally safe, although guidance was needed from a GP about gaps between doses and the use of two creams for one person.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, communication and aspirations. People chose their food and activities, received healthcare support and were supported by trained staff.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described kind and compassionate care. Staff respected privacy and dignity, supported communication and involved people and families in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and met people's communication, equality, cultural and spiritual needs. People had suitable bedrooms, quiet areas and a wide range of chosen activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- A new management and staff team had made significant improvements. Leaders were approachable and quality checks were more effective, although inspectors found minor shortfalls in auditing medicines and care records.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and significant improvements since the previous inspection, with minor medicines and records auditing shortfalls addressed during the visit.
Inspectors visited on 10 and 11 August 2021. They spoke with all three people living at the home, staff and relatives, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities in the home and community.
Inspectors found the home was clean, comfortable and suited to people's sensory and physical needs. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and respected their privacy, dignity and communication needs.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. A new staff and management team had strengthened care planning, record keeping and quality checks. Minor shortfalls in auditing medicines and care records were dealt with during the inspection.
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make daily decisions and develop their independence. Staff supported positive risk-taking, including learning new skills in the kitchen.
“The model of care and setting maximised people's choice, control and independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. People and relatives said staff were kind, compassionate and respectful.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who protected and respected their privacy and dignity and understood each person's individual needs.” from the report
Personalised activities
People chose activities linked to their interests and goals. These included walks, shopping, museums, parks, meals out and family visits.
“People made choices and took part in meaningful activities which were part of their planned care and support.” from the report
Medicines and records checks
minorInspectors found minor shortfalls in how medicines and care records were audited. The management team acted quickly to address these during the inspection.
“We did find some minor shortfalls in the way people's medicines and care records were audited.” from the report
Medicines guidance
minorStaff needed to seek GP guidance about gaps between doses of one medicine and the use of two topical creams. This was addressed during the inspection.
“There was a need for staff to seek guidance from one person's GP.” from the report
- 01How do you now audit medicines and care records, following the minor shortfalls identified by inspectors?
- 02What GP guidance was obtained about the gaps between medicine doses and the two topical creams?
- 03How will you involve my relative in choosing activities, meals and daily routines?
- 04How do you make sure staff understand my relative's communication, sensory and distress needs?
- 05What improvements have been made since the new staff and management team took over, and how are these checked?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe, and it followed up a previous Regulation 17 breach. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 2021 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, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but weak checks and some safety and care-record issues led to a warning notice.
Inspectors visited on 8 and 10 April 2019. They spoke with two people, two relatives, the manager and two staff members. They also checked care records, medicine records, staff files and quality checks.
People were supported to make choices about their routines, activities and meals. Inspectors found kind and respectful support. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and relatives said the home had improved.
There were important weaknesses. Safety risks were not always properly controlled, food records were not detailed enough, some hospital passports were undated, and one incident had not led to an updated risk assessment and support plan.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The provider breached Regulation 17 on good governance and received a warning notice.
Choice and independence
People had control over their routines, activities and meals. Staff encouraged them to take part in cooking, shopping and other daily tasks.
“People made decisions about their daily lives. This included, what activities they wished to do, when they wanted to go out, when they got up and when they went to bed.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw staff explain things clearly and encourage people to share their interests. People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected.
“Staff responded to people's needs. We saw one staff member taking the time to clearly explain why they were counting money.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were given as prescribed. Records and instructions for medicines were in place, including guidance for medicines taken only when needed.
“Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Improved activities
Relatives reported that activities had improved and included evening activities. The home had also found an accredited course to help people build skills.
“They are [activities] definitely much better. The activities are moving in the right direction. There are also now evening activities.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's audits did not identify or properly follow up several problems. This meant risks to people's health, safety and welfare might not be found quickly.
“The lack of robust quality assurance meant people were at risk of receiving poor quality care and should a decline in standards occur, the provider's systems may not pick up issues effectively.” from the report
Safety risks were not fully controlled
seriousVery hot water was found in an accessible staff toilet, without suitable risk controls. Cleaning products were also within reach, although these were locked away during the inspection.
“The staff toilet was accessible to people and staff could not effectively wash their hands because the water was so hot.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingFood records were not detailed enough to help a healthcare professional identify problems. This was particularly important for a person who wanted support to lose weight.
“These were not sufficiently detailed to enable a healthcare professional to identify any issues.” from the report
Incident follow-up
needs fixingAfter one incident, the person's risk assessment and support plan had not been updated, even though the incident form said this action had been completed.
“We found no evidence the person's risk assessment had been updated and no evidence their support plan had been reviewed.” from the report
Undated hospital passports
minorHospital passports had been introduced but did not show when they were completed or when they should be reviewed.
“However, there were undated and did not have a date for review.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure audits identify and follow up safety and care-record problems?
- 02How are risks from hot water and cleaning products now controlled and checked?
- 03How do you record food and drink in enough detail, particularly for people who are managing their weight?
- 04Are hospital passports now dated and regularly reviewed?
- 05How are incidents checked to make sure risk assessments and support plans are actually updated?
This inspection looked at the overall service and all five CQC questions, using discussions, records and observations; the previous rating was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 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
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 February 2014.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Wakefield
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. 79 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.”
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.