CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brooklands Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People generally felt safe, and medicines, recruitment and staffing arrangements were appropriate. However, some risks, fire evacuation information and infection-control arrangements were not reliable enough.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had quality checks and some improvements had been made, but audits had missed problems and action plans did not always show how issues would be addressed or sustained.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Brooklands Nursing Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found some improvements but ongoing concerns about risk records, fire evacuation information, cleanliness and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection over 13, 14 and 16 March 2023. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People generally said they felt safe. Staff recruitment and medicines arrangements were safe, staffing was appropriate during the inspection, and the home followed the Mental Capacity Act. However, some risks were not recorded in enough detail, fire evacuation information was not always accurate or easy to find, and some areas were not clean.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. The overall rating also remained Requires Improvement because the other question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. The home was no longer in breach of Regulations 12, 17 and 18, but inspectors said further improvements were still needed.
People felt safe
People and some relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood the main types of abuse and how to raise concerns.
“People told us they felt safe.” from the report
Medicines
The records checked showed people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored securely and staff had training and competency checks.
“The Medication Administration Records [MAR] for 10 out of 39 people were viewed and these showed people received their medication as prescribed.” from the report
Staff recruitment
The recruitment records checked included identity checks, references, application forms and DBS checks before staff started work.
“Relevant checks were completed before a new member of staff started working at the service.” from the report
Choice and consent
The home was working within the Mental Capacity Act. Staff asked for consent before providing care, and relevant legal authorisations were in place where needed.
“Staff asked for people's consent before providing care and support.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored for patterns. The manager said significant incidents were being investigated.
“Accident and incidents were logged and monitored to identify potential trends and themes.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome risks linked to distress and behaviour were not assessed robustly. Risks linked to catheters were also not fully considered or recorded.
“We could not be assured staff had all information required to manage the person's risks in a safe and effective way.” from the report
Fire evacuation records
seriousSome emergency evacuation information was inaccurate, out of date or difficult to access. Some staff were also unclear about where the fire grab bags were kept.
“This placed people, staff, and fire personnel at risk of harm, compromising their safety.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
needs fixingNot all areas were clean. Inspectors found dirty toilet brushes and bathroom floors that were not all impermeable or in good repair.
“Toilet brushes throughout the service were unhygienic and dirty with faecal matter.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits did not identify the shortfalls found during the inspection. Action plans did not always record how improvements would be completed and followed up.
“Audits completed had not picked up the shortfalls identified as part of this inspection.” from the report
Communication
minorSome relatives reported difficulty getting clear information and answers. Staff concerns about communication and respect were not routinely recorded with follow-up actions.
“The problem is when I phone, you never get a clear picture of what is happening.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make risk assessments for distress, behaviour and catheter care complete and specific?
- 02Where are the fire grab bags and each person's evacuation plan kept, and how do you check staff know this?
- 03Have the bathroom floors been replaced, and how do you now check that all areas and equipment are clean?
- 04How are audits and action plans checked by managers so that problems are found and improvements are sustained?
- 05What has been done to improve communication with relatives and to respond to staff concerns about communication and respect?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 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 2022
Brooklands Nursing Home: inspected but not rated; infection control was mostly in place, but some visiting, testing and vaccination records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 12 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care. The home was inspected but not rated.
Inspectors found several good arrangements. Visitors were screened, people were admitted safely, staff generally used PPE correctly and the home was visibly clean. Relatives could visit, including when someone was nearing the end of their life.
There were also gaps. There was no booking system to stagger visits, some visitors wore the wrong type of mask, and individual visiting plans were not in place. Records about COVID-19 testing and visiting professionals' vaccination status were not up to date.
The home was using agency staff more often because of staffing shortages. Inspectors said this had not affected service delivery, partly because the same agency staff were used where possible.
Safe visiting
Relatives could visit, including people visiting someone judged to be at the end of their life. Visitors were screened and asked to use PPE and rapid testing.
“Arrangements were in place for relatives to visit their family member and included where people were judged to be at the end of their life.” from the report
Safe admissions
People's COVID-19 status was checked before admission and people self-isolated in line with government guidance.
“People's COVID-19 status was sought prior to admittance and people self-isolated in line with current government guidance.” from the report
PPE and hygiene
Inspectors saw staff using masks, gloves and aprons, alongside good hygiene practices. Most staff had received relevant infection control and COVID-19 training.
“Appropriate infection prevention control practices were observed for staff, such as the wearing of masks, gloves, aprons and included good hygiene practices.” from the report
Clean environment
Cleaning schedules were in place and the home appeared visibly clean.
“Cleaning schedules were in place and the environment was visibly clean.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
needs fixingThere was no booking system to stagger visits. People did not have individual visiting plans, and relatives had not been asked to identify three named visitors.
“A booking system was not in place to stagger visitors and visiting times which would help to improve safe visiting.” from the report
Testing records and risk checks
needs fixingCOVID-19 testing records were not as up to date as they should have been. Current and emerging pandemic risks had not been identified for everyone or all staff.
“Records to determine if the testing regime practices for people using the service and staff were in line with current government guidance were not as up to date as they should be.” from the report
Visiting professionals' vaccination records
needs fixingThe home had not kept a record of visiting professionals' COVID-19 status before the inspection. It implemented a record as a result of the inspection.
“A record of visiting professionals COVID-19 status had not been maintained prior to our inspection but was implemented as a result of our inspection.” from the report
Masks used by visitors
needs fixingSome visitors were seen wearing fabric masks instead of single-use surgical masks. The manager was told immediately and visitors were asked to change them.
“Although visitors were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 and were required to wear appropriate PPE, some visitors were observed to wear a fabric face mask and not a single use surgical mask.” from the report
- 01What individual visiting plans are now in place for each resident, and how are visits being staggered?
- 02How do you now keep COVID-19 testing records up to date for residents and staff?
- 03How do you identify and manage current and emerging COVID-19 risks for people with underlying health conditions and staff from black, Asian and ethnic minority groups?
- 04How do you check the vaccination status of visiting professionals, and what evidence do you accept?
- 05How are agency staff numbers affecting continuity of care, and are the same agency staff still being used where possible?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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.
Every inspection of Brooklands Nursing Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2015.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.