CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brooklyn Care Homes Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood safeguarding, risks were reviewed as people's needs changed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough trained staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this inspection, although inspectors reported that staff were kind, caring and dedicated.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this inspection, although care and support were described as tailored to people's strengths, needs and wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was managed in an open and inclusive way. Managers and staff understood their roles, used audits and incidents to improve care, but there was no registered manager in post at the time.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Brooklyn Care Homes Limited was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe, supported by caring staff and involved in their lives, but there was no registered manager in post.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, incident and management records.
The inspection focused on Safe and Well-led. Both areas were rated Good. Inspectors found staff understood safeguarding, assessed risks, managed medicines safely and had enough trained staff to meet people's needs. Infection prevention arrangements were also found to be effective.
The home was described as open, caring and person-centred. People were involved in their care, activities and the recruitment of staff. A new manager had applied to become registered, but the application was still being assessed.
Good safeguarding
Staff knew people well, understood safeguarding and supported people to raise concerns. Safeguarding information was displayed in a format people could understand.
“People were kept safe from the risk of abuse because staff knew them well and could identify any potential safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Positive risk support
Staff supported people to take positive risks and pursue personal goals, including activities they had not tried before.
“Staff encouraged people to take positive risks in order to live fulfilled independent lives.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, including support for activities. Staff followed safe medicine procedures and reviewed medicine errors.
“People were supported by enough suitably trained staff to safely meet their needs.” from the report
People involved in the home
People helped shape the service, took part in staff interviews and were involved in planning and reviewing their care.
“People were actively involved in shaping the service.” from the report
Open management
Managers were visible and approachable. Staff, people and relatives were encouraged to give feedback, and incidents were used as learning opportunities.
“The provider, manager and deputy manager worked hard to ensure the culture was one of openness and inclusivity.” from the report
Manager registration pending
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post. A new manager had applied to register, but the application was still being assessed. The report says the provider has a legal requirement to have a registered manager.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager at the service.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's application to become registered now been approved?
- 02How many vacancies are there currently, and how often are experienced agency staff used?
- 03How will you make sure agency staff continue to know each person's needs and preferences?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and risk assessments?
- 05How do you monitor medicines, medicine errors and any reduction in medicines given as needed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and concerns about staffing and management; the other three key question ratings were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 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, December 2018
Brooklyn Care Homes Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support across all five areas.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 6 and 9 November 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and other organisations. They also observed care and checked care records, staffing, training and quality checks.
The home supports up to six adults living with autism, learning disabilities and mental health needs. Six people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicine systems, clean surroundings and suitable action to manage risks.
People's health needs, food choices, communication needs and personal goals were recorded. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, involved in their care and supported to build independence. All five areas were rated Good, the same as at the previous comprehensive inspection in January 2016.
Safe staffing
Staffing was planned around people's assessed needs, including support for activities and community trips. Recruitment checks were also carried out.
“People were cared for safely, by adequate numbers of staff who had been checked to ensure they were suitable to work at the service.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped shape their care plans and were supported with activities, communication and goals such as becoming more independent.
“People received personalised and responsive care because they were involved in their care planning.” from the report
Choice and independence
Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, take part in appointments and develop everyday skills.
“Care plans supported people's independence and promoted what people could achieve for themselves.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used audits and reviews to check medicines, finances, care plans, health conditions, accidents and incidents.
“These overall governance arrangements helped to identify any trends, learn from when things went wrong, manage risk and provide assurances on the quality and safety of services for people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you match staffing and support to my relative's assessed needs, including support from two staff if required?
- 02How would you support my relative's personal goals, interests and independence?
- 03How would you communicate important information to my relative if they became anxious or found changes difficult?
- 04How would you manage and review any risks linked to epilepsy, choking, medicines or other health conditions?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in care reviews and raising concerns?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the ratings remained Good from the previous comprehensive inspection in January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2018 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 Brooklyn Care Homes Limited
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.