CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brookside Residential 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
- Risk assessments and care plans were not always complete or up to date. Cleaning products and some topical medicines were not always stored safely, and some medicine checks were not recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality audits had not identified several problems with care plans, medicines, environmental checks and risk monitoring. New quality monitoring systems were introduced during the inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Brookside Residential Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found gaps in risk management, medicine storage and quality checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 December 2023. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led only because concerns had been raised about incidents and risk management. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Risk assessments and care plans did not always contain the right information, harmful cleaning products and some medicines were not stored safely, and some medicine checks were not recorded. Inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but said there was an increased risk that people could be harmed.
The home was also not always well-led. Audits had missed problems with care plans, medicine storage, fridge temperature checks and risk monitoring. A new manager had been in post for just over two weeks, and new electronic and quality monitoring systems were introduced during the inspection.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The home breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance. The Care Quality Commission will seek an action plan and monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and staff responded promptly when help was needed.
“People told us they felt safe living in the home and with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
People said there were enough staff, and inspectors found that recruitment checks had been completed.
“Recruitment files showed all pre-employment checks had been made to ensure only staff who were suitable to work with people were employed.” from the report
Positive culture
People, relatives and staff described the culture as positive, inclusive and focused on people's individual needs.
“The culture within the home was empowering and focused on the individuality of people.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals and communicated changes in people's health needs.
“A visiting professional told us the provider worked closely with them and promptly communicated any changes in people's health needs.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousSome risks, including epilepsy and behaviour-related risks, were not fully assessed or reflected in care plans. This meant staff might not have had clear instructions about how to respond.
“Risks to people were not always effectively monitored or assessed.” from the report
Unsafe storage of harmful products
seriousCleaning products and some topical medicines were accessible to people. Some medicines were not dated when opened, so the home could not be sure they remained safe to use.
“Cleaning substances were accessible, and people were seen independently walking around the home.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits had not identified several problems with care plans, medicines, fridge temperature records and risk monitoring. This was part of the breach of good governance.
“Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate effective governance.” from the report
Medicine checks not recorded
needs fixingStaff said they visually checked pain relief skin patches each day, but this was not recorded. The home could not provide evidence that the checks had been completed.
“This meant the provider could not evidence the skin patches had been checked.” from the report
- 01How are the new electronic monitoring and quality audit systems checking that risk assessments and care plans stay complete and up to date?
- 02How are cleaning products, topical medicines and other harmful substances now kept safely away from people?
- 03How are medicine opening dates, fridge temperatures and daily skin patch checks recorded and checked by managers?
- 04What action has been taken to assess the risks linked to epilepsy and sexualised behaviour, and what training have staff received?
- 05Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and has the new manager submitted an application to become registered?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection and were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 2024 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
The inspection took place on 10 February 2022 and was announced two hours beforehand. It was a targeted inspection of infection control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included visitor screening, safe use of personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing and arrangements for preventing or managing outbreaks.
The home had built a visiting pod and people had continued to receive visitors in line with government guidance. Individual COVID-19 risk assessments were in place for people and staff.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all aspects of care, so it does not provide an overall quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable measures to prevent and manage infections, including effective PPE use and an up-to-date infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Staff training
Extra training helped the registered manager train staff in the safe use of PPE. The home also had an infection control champion.
“The registered manager had undertaken extra training, so they were able to train the staff in the safe use of PPE and the home had an infection control champion.” from the report
Family visiting
People were supported to keep in contact with their families. A visiting pod had been built, and essential care givers had been able to visit at appropriate times.
“People were supported to stay in contact with their families and the provider had built a visiting pod.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened for symptoms and vaccination status?
- 02How do you make sure staff use PPE safely and consistently?
- 03How are people supported to receive family visits, including visits from essential care givers?
- 04What measures are in place if COVID-19 creates staffing pressures?
- 05How often are individual infection risk assessments reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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 Brookside Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.