CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brookfield Residential Care Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention, while the home was closed to visitors and new admissions during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 August 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed infection risks safely. This included visitor restrictions, social distancing, shielding, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, admissions and outbreak planning.
The home was closed to visitors except where a visit met an essential need. It was also closed to new admissions because its usual transition process involved visits, meals and overnight stays.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the other four areas.
Visitor infection controls
The home restricted visitors and allowed exceptions only for essential needs, helping to reduce the risk of infection entering or spreading.
“The service was closed to all visitors. Any exceptions to this rule had to be justified as meeting an essential need for the resident” from the report
Safe use of PPE
Inspectors were assured that PPE was being used effectively and safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Infection prevention systems
Inspectors were assured about testing, hygiene, social distancing, outbreak planning and the infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safe admissions approach
The home stopped new admissions because its usual transition process could not take place safely during the pandemic.
“The care home was closed to admissions because any prospective residents had to go through a transition process that involved visits, lunches and overnight stays” from the report
Further development identified
minorThe provider was signposted to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not describe this as a breach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What visitor arrangements are in place now, and how are essential visits decided?
- 02What is the current process for admitting a new resident and helping them settle in?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens if there is a suspected infection outbreak?
- 04What infection prevention improvements were made after the provider was signposted to further resources?
- 05When was the home's wider care quality last fully rated, since this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the other four questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 August 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, March 2019
Rated Good overall, with kind and personalised care, but some records and communication could be more robust.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 16 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with five people, staff, the manager, the provider and a visiting healthcare professional. They also observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was calm, clean and well maintained. People said they felt safe and staff were kind, respectful and supportive. Inspectors found that people had choice in their daily lives, were involved in care planning and were supported with health appointments, activities, education and voluntary work.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors made recommendations about recording lessons from complaints, analysing accident trends, keeping families informed and using health passports for hospital care.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 16 May 2016. The report says the service remained Good overall.
People felt safe
People consistently told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and backgrounds. People were involved in reviews and staff knew their likes and dislikes.
“People's preferences, likes and dislikes were acknowledged and recorded.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose when to get up, go to bed, eat and spend their time. The home also supported education, voluntary work and moves towards more independent living.
“People's independence was promoted and step down to more independent living was supported.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Privacy, dignity, equality and religious needs were respected.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and people. Staff had good relationships with people, and appeared to know them well, including their likes and dislikes.” from the report
Calm environment
The home was clean, homely and well maintained, with a relaxed atmosphere and personalised bedrooms.
“The premises were homely and well maintained. We observed a relaxed atmosphere throughout the site visit.” from the report
Complaint records
minorOne complaint had been investigated and answered, but the record did not set out the action taken and lessons learnt robustly enough.
“However, we recommend that improvements are made to record the action taken and any lessons learnt more robustly.” from the report
Accident trend analysis
minorAccidents and incidents were managed and recorded appropriately. Inspectors recommended using a fuller analysis process if the number of events increased.
“We recommend that an analysis process is used to identify any regular trends, if the number of events increased.” from the report
Information for families
minorFamily and friend attendance at meetings was very limited. Inspectors recommended using newsletters to improve communication, and the provider said newsletters had been introduced after the visit.
“We recommend that the service uses tools such as newsletters to keep people, families and friends informed.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the action taken and lessons learnt after a complaint?
- 02How do you analyse accidents and incidents to identify any repeated trends?
- 03How do you keep relatives and friends informed, and are newsletters still being used?
- 04Do you now use health passports when someone goes into hospital?
- 05How will you support my relative's choices, independence, activities and longer-term move to more independent living?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care; inspectors spoke with five people and reviewed three care records and three medicine records. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 March 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 Residential Care Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Brookfield Residential Care Home Limited →
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Brookfield Residential Care Home Limited →
- May 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bury
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. 94 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“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.