CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brooklyn House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection control measures, including PPE, testing, admissions, visiting and outbreak management. They were only partly assured about the layout, use of space, hygiene and infection control policies because staff did not have an allocated room to store or change out of potentially contaminated items.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls but only partial assurance about layout, hygiene and changing areas.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 19 January 2021. It focused only on infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
The home was working with the local infection control team. Staff had PPE training, PPE was available, and people and staff were tested regularly. Visiting arrangements supported people receiving end of life care while reducing infection risks.
Inspectors were only partly assured about the layout, use of space, hygiene and infection control policies. The home did not have an allocated room where staff could store or change out of potentially contaminated items. The provider had an action plan to address these issues.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for the five areas of care.
PPE and infection control support
The home worked closely with the local infection control team. Staff had PPE training and PPE was readily available.
“Staff had been trained in the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) and PPE made readily available throughout the service.” from the report
Regular COVID-19 testing
People living in the home and staff were receiving regular COVID-19 tests, and the results were acted on.
“People and staff were accessing regular testing for COVID-19, and results were acted on.” from the report
Support for end of life visits
The home had visiting arrangements for people receiving end of life care while aiming to reduce infection risks.
“Visiting arrangements were in place to support people receiving end of life care, whilst minimising the risk of infection being brought into the service.” from the report
Staff changing and storage arrangements
needs fixingInspectors were only partly assured that the layout, use of space and hygiene arrangements reduced the risk of cross-infection. Staff did not have an allocated room to store or change out of potentially contaminated items.
“Such as staff not having an allocated room to store /change out of potentially contaminated items when entering and leaving the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to provide staff with a suitable room to store and change out of potentially contaminated items?
- 02What actions from the infection control action plan have been completed, and what remains outstanding?
- 03How are you checking that the layout, use of space and hygiene arrangements prevent cross-infection?
- 04How will new admissions be isolated and managed in line with current guidance?
- 05How are visits for people receiving end of life care arranged while reducing infection risks?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only, so the home was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, individual care, but staffing and some risk assessments needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 20 November 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, a family member, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, staff files, rotas and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices, given suitable food and drink, and helped to access healthcare. Staff knew people well and provided personal care.
Inspectors also found some weaknesses. There were not always enough staff at busy times. Risk assessments for bed rails and choking were not detailed enough. The home was not actively identifying communication needs linked to disability or sensory loss, and people's views were not a regular part of quality checks.
The home remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection on 4 March 2015. Inspectors made recommendations for improvement, but said the issues found had not affected people's safety at the time of this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff providing care in a compassionate and personal way. People were treated with dignity and staff understood their individual preferences.
“We saw people were treated in a kind, caring and respectful way by staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make day-to-day choices and do as much as possible for themselves. Staff asked for consent and respected people's decisions.
“Staff actively encouraged people to make their own day to day choices and decisions.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People could choose what, when and where to eat. Staff supported access to healthcare professionals and responded to changing health needs.
“Meal times were flexible and we saw people choosing when and where they wanted to eat and drink.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's needs, interests and communication styles. Care plans included people's backgrounds, hobbies, likes and dislikes.
“People were cared for and supported by staff that understood their needs and knew them well.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingThe home could not show how it calculated safe staffing levels. Inspectors found that some people might have to wait for support when several needed two staff members.
“At key times of the day, there were not enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
needs fixingAssessments for people using bed rails did not contain enough detail about possible injury. There were also no choking risk assessments for some people who needed help to eat and drink safely.
“Risk assessments were in place but some of these needed to be more detailed and look at the risks posed to people who used bed rails or who were at risk of choking.” from the report
People's views in quality checks
minorQuality checks were carried out, but people's views were not a regular part of deciding what needed to improve. Only one meeting had been held to seek people's views about their care.
“People's views were not an integral part of the quality assurance process.” from the report
Notification to CQC
needs fixingThe registered manager had not notified CQC about a recent safeguarding event. A notification was sent after the inspection and the manager said this would be addressed in future.
“The registered manager did not notify the commission about an event that had taken place at the service.” from the report
- 01How do you calculate staffing levels at the busiest times, and how do you make sure staff on each shift have the right skills?
- 02What changes have you made to the risk assessments for choking and bed rails since this inspection?
- 03How do you identify and record each person's communication needs, including needs caused by disability or sensory loss?
- 04How often do you now hold meetings or other activities to get people's and families' views about care?
- 05What system is now in place to make sure safeguarding events are notified to CQC when required?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five questions, and the previous Good ratings from 4 March 2015 were reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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 House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 March 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.