CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brookside
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Brookside was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 April 2021. It looked at how the home prevented and controlled infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found that visitors were checked before entering, including testing and temperature checks. They were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, following social distancing guidance, and supporting regular testing.
The home was visibly clean and had increased cleaning. People were supported to understand the safety measures and to continue activities and routines that mattered to them.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. Only infection prevention and control was assessed, so this report does not provide a full rating of the quality of care.
Activities and wellbeing
People were supported to keep their usual routines and activities while staying safe. Inspectors saw people enjoying gardening and cooking.
“People had been supported to maintain their wellbeing and continue to take part in their preferred routines and activities.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors had checks before entering, including a rapid COVID-19 test and a temperature check. Visits from family and friends were being supported in line with government guidance.
“Visitors to the service took part in various checks to ensure that it was safe for them to enter the premises.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean, with extra cleaning tasks and changes to rooms to support social distancing.
“The service was visibly clean and changes had been made in various rooms to help promote social distancing.” from the report
Support for people and staff
People were given information about safety measures in meetings and easy-read displays. Staff had training in protective equipment and infection control.
“Staff received training in PPE use and infection control specific to COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 16 April 2021?
- 02What checks are currently required for visitors, and how are visits from family and friends being supported?
- 03How often are people and staff tested, and what support is available for people who find testing difficult?
- 04How do you make sure cleaning audits lead to further improvements?
- 05Which areas of care have not been assessed in this targeted inspection, and can we see the most recent full inspection information?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or an overall service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 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, November 2019
Brookside was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor record-keeping issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 16 October 2019. One inspector spoke with seven people and eight staff members, observed care and reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, personalised care and good links with health professionals.
The home supported 18 people and was registered for up to 22. It was larger than current best practice guidance, but inspectors said the design gave people personal space and helped protect their independence. Some daily records were not detailed enough, and minor fire risk actions had not yet been completed during the visit, although these were dealt with soon afterwards.
Kind, personalised care
Staff knew people well and supported them in ways that reflected their individual needs, preferences and communication styles.
“People were supported by a kind and compassionate staff team who knew them well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make choices, take positive risks and remain independent in everyday activities and community life.
“People's support focused on them having opportunities to maintain their independence and live their lives in the way that they chose.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff, robust recruitment checks and safe medicines practice. Staff had relevant training and their skills were checked.
“There were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could join activities at the home or in the community, based on their interests and preferences.
“People told us they could take part in a number of activities both in the community and at the service.” from the report
Positive management
The manager used audits, meetings and feedback from people, relatives and staff to identify improvements.
“The manager promoted a positive culture and was passionate about supporting people living at the service.” from the report
Daily records were not always detailed
needs fixingSome daily records did not clearly show the support people had received. The operations manager said work was under way to improve this.
“Staff also completed daily records about how people were during the day, however these were not always detailed and did not give a reflection of the support people had received.” from the report
Minor fire safety actions were outstanding
minorSome actions from a fire risk assessment had not been completed by the second day of the inspection. The home sent evidence that these actions were dealt with immediately afterwards.
“On the second day of our inspection we saw that some minor issues that had been identified in a fire risk assessment had not yet been actioned.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that daily records fully describe the support each person has received?
- 02What were the minor fire risk actions, and can you show that they have all been completed?
- 03How will you make sure care remains personalised in a home that is larger than current best practice guidance?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing their care plans, menus and activity choices?
- 05How do you check that agency staff remain up to date with people’s changing support needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and the previous Good ratings for each area remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 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 Brookside
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 April 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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.