CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brookfield Support Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, recruitment checks were completed, and systems were in place for safeguarding and accidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected in this report. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected in this report. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected in this report. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems to monitor quality and safety. Leaders supported people's independence and worked with health and social care professionals, although some senior staff were not fully aware of CQC notification requirements.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with some action needed on documents and reporting.
This was an unannounced inspection on the first day and an announced inspection on the second day. One inspector spoke with 12 people and 8 staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. People said they felt safe, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, and staff recruitment checks were completed.
The home supports people leaving hospital who need more time to recover or regain independence before returning home or moving to suitable accommodation. The report says the overall rating remained Good, but this inspection did not assess all five areas.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe using the home. Safeguarding systems and procedures for responding to concerns were in place.
“People told us they felt safe using the service.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Storage, temperature checks, daily checks and regular audits were in place.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Support for independence
The home aimed to help people regain physical and emotional wellbeing and return to suitable accommodation. Staff also helped with practical matters such as housing applications and medical appointments.
“The ethos of the service was to enable people to regain their physical and emotional best” from the report
Partnership working
People could access GP, nursing, social work, occupational therapy and physiotherapy support to help with recovery and discharge planning.
“People had access to daily visits from a GP service and access to nurses based in the same building.” from the report
Outdated documents
needs fixingSome outdated documents were stored alongside current guidance. The manager had identified this as an action needing attention.
“Discussion took place regarding the number of 'outdated' documents being stored with current guidance.” from the report
Safeguarding notification
needs fixingSenior staff were not fully aware when safeguarding concerns had to be reported to the CQC. The report says action was taken immediately to clarify the correct process.
“We identified that senior staff were not fully aware of situations in which statutory notifications were needed to be sent to CQC.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove outdated documents and make sure staff use only current guidance?
- 02How do you make sure safeguarding concerns are reported to the CQC when required?
- 03How will you support my relative's rehabilitation and independence during their stay?
- 04How will you plan and coordinate my relative's return home or move to suitable accommodation?
- 05Which of the five CQC areas were not reassessed during this inspection, and what were their previous ratings?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, but visiting procedures did not fully match guidance.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 19 January 2023. It followed concerns about visiting arrangements and looked mainly at infection prevention and control, as well as staffing pressures.
Inspectors found good infection control arrangements. The home had a separate unit for new admissions, up-to-date guidance, a named infection control lead, well-stocked protective equipment stations, and correct use of protective equipment.
The home was clean and well maintained. Visiting was flexible and families could visit, but written visiting procedures did not fully match government guidance. The home said it had reviewed and updated its procedures.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the five areas of care.
Good infection control planning
A separate unit was used for admissions to reduce the risk of infection spreading. The home also had an infection control lead who worked with staff on the correct procedures.
“A designated unit within the home had been identified for use to admit people to the service.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment stations were clearly signed and well stocked. Staff were seen using the correct equipment, and people said staff always wore it correctly.
“Well stocked and clearly signed personal protective equipment (PPE) stations were located around the service.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained. Cleaning schedules were in place and checked regularly.
“The service was clean and well maintained. Cleaning schedules were in place and regularly monitored.” from the report
Infection control assurance
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including admissions, possible outbreaks, protective equipment and infection prevention procedures.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Visiting procedures
needs fixingWritten visiting procedures did not fully match government guidance. The home said it had reviewed its systems and updated information for people and their families.
“There was a flexible approach to visiting, however written procedures did not fully align to government guidance.” from the report
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and how do they follow the updated procedures?
- 02What changes were made after inspectors found that the written visiting procedures did not fully align with government guidance?
- 03How are staffing pressures being managed, and have they affected people's care or visiting arrangements?
- 04How does the separate admission unit help reduce the risk of infection spreading?
- 05Who is the infection control lead, and how are staff kept up to date with infection prevention procedures?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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 Brookfield Support Centre
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2023Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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 St. Helens
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.