CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brownhill Care Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, using PPE safely, arranging testing and keeping its infection control policy up to date. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Brownhill Care Limited was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls and safe visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 February and 3 March 2022. Inspectors gave 24 hours' notice. They focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, managing testing and admissions, and keeping its infection control policy up to date. Visitors had checks before entering, including vaccination evidence, lateral flow testing and temperature checks.
People could keep in touch with others through telephone and video calls, as well as visits in the garden cabin or outdoor communal area. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control systems
The home had systems to identify and reduce infection risks. Staff and people had COVID-19 risk assessments and plans to reduce those risks.
“The provider had embedded systems to manage and mitigate the risks of infection.” from the report
Visitor safety checks
Visitors and professionals were checked before entering, and the results and vaccination records were recorded.
“All test results were recorded.” from the report
Maintaining relationships
People could use video calls, telephone calls and in-person visits in spaces designed to reduce infection risks.
“People had access to video calls, telephone calls and in person visits in the purpose built garden cabin that was specially designed to accommodate visits safely.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw that there was enough PPE available and that staff used and disposed of it safely.
“Staff wore and disposed of gloves, aprons and masks safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection?
- 02How do you currently manage staffing pressures, including any pressures linked to illness or infection?
- 03What checks do visitors need to complete before entering the home now?
- 04How can residents keep in contact with family through visits, telephone calls or video calls?
- 05What are the home's current quality ratings in areas that were not assessed in this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; only Safe was inspected and it was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 May 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, May 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a medicines guidance gap needing attention.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 28 March 2019. One inspector spoke with five people, staff, managers and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines records, incident and complaint records, and quality checks.
The home supports 14 adults with mental health care needs. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, good safeguarding, personalised care plans and support to build independent living skills. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were supported with health care, food, activities and relationships.
The overall rating was Good, as were all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors did identify that staff did not have sufficiently detailed guidance for using some as-required medicines safely. The manager agreed to improve this, and CQC said it would check progress at the next inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People and health professionals spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw that people appeared comfortable and at ease with staff.
“People looked at ease and comfortable in the presence of staff. Conversations we heard between people and staff were characterised by respect and compassion.” from the report
Building independence
The home helped people learn practical skills such as preparing meals, managing money and taking more responsibility for their daily lives, with the aim of moving to less supported accommodation.
“People were encouraged and supported to develop their independent living skills with the long-term aim of moving on.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's strengths, preferences, interests and wishes. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“People received personalised care and support which was responsive to their needs and wishes.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with mental health and other health and social care professionals to plan support and respond to people's needs.
“External mental health care professionals told us they had a good working relationship with the service.” from the report
Guidance for as-required medicines
seriousAlthough people received their medicines as prescribed, staff could not easily access enough detail about when and how to give some as-required medicines safely. The manager agreed to introduce fuller guidance, which CQC planned to check at the next inspection.
“staff did not have easy access to sufficiently detailed guidance about when and how to use 'as required' PRN medicines safely.” from the report
- 01What detailed guidance has now been introduced for as-required behavioural modification medicines?
- 02How do you make sure staff understand when and how to use these medicines safely?
- 03How would you support my relative to develop independent living skills and move on to less supported accommodation?
- 04How would you respond if my relative became distressed or their behaviour presented a risk?
- 05How will you involve my relative, relatives and mental health professionals in reviewing the care plan?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings were given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 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 Brownhill Care Limited
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 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 Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.