CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brownhills Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were in place, but some risk assessments were not fully up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff had suitable training, people were supported with food and drink, and staff worked with health professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and thoughtful interactions. People were treated with dignity and respect and were supported to make choices about their daily lives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and activities were available. However, reviews of care plans did not always involve people, relatives or representatives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff felt supported and management promoted person-centred care. The report also said the service was not always well-led because audits and checks did not consistently ensure records were up to date.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Brownhills Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but records and care plan reviews needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 August 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and kind, respectful care.
There were some weaknesses in how the home checked its records. Some risk assessments and care records were not fully up to date, care plan reviews did not always involve people or relatives, and incident records could have been analysed better. The home was already working on these issues.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing needs were assessed for each person and reviewed as needs changed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received their medicines when needed. Staff who gave medicines were trained and checked as competent.
“People told us they received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed gentle and thoughtful care. People were supported with privacy, dignity and choice.
“We observed gentle, kind and thoughtful interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Activities and contact
People had access to a varied programme of activities and were supported to keep in touch with relatives during the pandemic.
“We saw the staff provided a varied programme of activities each day led by the activities co-ordinator.” from the report
Records were not always up to date
needs fixingSome care records and risk assessments did not reflect people's current needs. The provider said it was improving care plan audits and reviews.
“We found audits of care records could be improved to ensure recorded information was up to date.” from the report
Limited involvement in care plan reviews
needs fixingCare plans were personalised, but reviews did not always involve the person, relatives or representatives. The manager said a structured review programme would be introduced.
“care plan reviews lacked involvement from people, their relatives and representatives.” from the report
Incident analysis
minorAccidents and incidents were recorded and monitored, but the home could have done more to look for patterns or repeated themes.
“improvements could be made to the analysis of incidents to identify any trends or themes.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure risk assessments are updated promptly when someone's health or needs change?
- 02How are residents and relatives involved in care plan reviews?
- 03What changes have been made to care record audits since this inspection?
- 04How do you analyse accidents and incidents to identify trends or repeated problems?
- 05How will you show families that the improvements to care plans and audits have been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control measures, with the previous Good ratings remaining unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 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, April 2020
Brownhills Nursing Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some staff needing stronger understanding of mental capacity rules.
Inspectors visited without warning on 9 March 2020. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, received their medicines correctly, had enough staff support and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breaches about safeguarding and reporting incidents. At this inspection, inspectors found the improvements were in place and the home was no longer in breach.
Improved safeguarding
The home had introduced clearer processes for responding to allegations of abuse and reporting concerns. Inspectors found identified safeguarding incidents had been reported and investigated appropriately.
“We found all identified safeguarding incidents had been reported and investigated appropriately.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Staff who gave medicines were trained and checked for competence. Records showed medicines were administered correctly and stock counts were accurate.
“Medicine Administration Records (MAR) noted all medicines were administered correctly and medicine count records accurately recorded the total of each medicine in stock.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and compassionate. Inspectors observed staff helping people feel comfortable and supporting their privacy, dignity and independence.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. The home offered daily activities and encouraged family involvement to reduce isolation.
“We saw the staff provided a varied programme of activities each day led by the activities co-ordinator.” from the report
Stronger management oversight
The manager had introduced regular checks of incidents, daily records, care and staff practice. Inspectors found a positive culture and clear management structure.
“The registered manager maintained a clear audit schedule and evidenced action taken to develop or change the service to continually meet people's needs.” from the report
Mental capacity knowledge
needs fixingSome staff could not explain how they would apply the Mental Capacity Act principles in their work. The manager said the training gaps would be addressed as a priority.
“However, some staff were not able to describe how they would apply the principles effectively in their work.” from the report
- 01What extra training have staff received to help them apply the Mental Capacity Act in practice?
- 02Has the planned electronic medicines system been introduced, and what additional safeguards does it provide?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents checked and reported now?
- 04How will you make sure care plans continue to reflect each person's current preferences and choices?
- 05What activities are available for someone with my relative's interests, communication needs and abilities?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with improvements checked against the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 2020 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 Brownhills Nursing Home
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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 Walsall
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 £1,200 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.