CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brownrigg
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe, with risk assessments covering areas such as mobility, community access and epilepsy. Staff were safely recruited and medicines records showed medicines were given as prescribed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in and care plans were reviewed when needs changed. Staff had relevant training, followed specialist healthcare advice and supported people to eat and drink safely.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and respectful. Staff supported people to make choices, build independence and develop skills such as managing money.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and communication needs were recorded. People were supported to take part in work, education, trips and other activities, and complaints were investigated and answered.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, clear management arrangements and regular checks on the quality and safety of care. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views, and suggestions were acted on where possible.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good across all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind, person-centred care and support for independence.
This was a planned inspection on 12 December 2019. One inspector spoke with all six people living at the home, observed staff, spoke with four staff members and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines arrangements. People said staff were kind and respectful. They were supported to make choices, learn skills, use the community and take part in activities.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in June 2017.
Support for independence
People were encouraged to make choices, take managed risks and gain practical skills. Staff supported people to do as much as possible for themselves.
“People were supported to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People told inspectors that staff were friendly and helpful. Staff knew people well and respected their privacy, dignity and preferences.
“Staff were kind and had built up strong relationships with the people they supported.” from the report
Active lives
People took part in community activities, work, education and trips. Inspectors saw evidence of busy social lives and support to follow individual interests.
“People were supported to take part in a range of activities and had busy and active social lives.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Records were complete and showed that medicines were given as prescribed.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) were fully completed which showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Good oversight
The registered manager carried out checks, reviewed care plans and used feedback from people, relatives and staff to make improvements.
“After each audit an action plan was created and any small areas of improvement, such as reviewing a person's risk assessment were noted and implemented.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you support my relative to gain skills and become more independent?
- 02What healthcare support and specialist guidance would be available for my relative's particular needs?
- 03How would my relative be supported to take part in activities, work, education or trips in the local community?
- 04How would you communicate with my relative if they needed information in pictures, large print or another accessible format?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a concern or make a complaint, and how will it be followed up?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Brownrigg was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
The announced inspection took place on 10 May 2017. One inspector spoke with five people, the manager and care staff. They observed care and mealtime interactions, and checked care plans, staff files, medicines records, accident records and quality checks.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received medicines safely and had enough skilled staff. People had access to health services, nutritious food and support to make choices.
Inspectors saw a relaxed and homely service. Staff were described as kind, respectful and consistent. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and people were offered activities at home and in the community.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in August and September 2014, so the overall rating remained Good.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Records they checked were accurate and medicines were administered respectfully.
“We saw these were accurate.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke highly of the consistent staff team. Inspectors observed a caring and respectful approach, with privacy and dignity maintained.
“Everyone we spoke with spoke highly of the caring and respectful attitude of a consistent staff team which was observed throughout the inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs, likes, dislikes and routines. People were involved in creating and reviewing their plans where possible.
“The care plans were very detailed and gave descriptions of people's needs and the support staff should give to meet these.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to choose how they spent their time and to take part in activities at home and in the community. Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“People choose their own hours and what they want to do.” from the report
Management oversight
The management team was described as approachable and supportive. Audits and feedback were used to monitor quality and plan improvements.
“Quality assurance audits were embedded to ensure a good level of quality was maintained.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you involve my relative in creating and reviewing their care plan?
- 02How do you make sure medicines remain accurate and are given at the right time?
- 03How do you keep staffing levels and the consistent staff team described in the report?
- 04Which activities could my relative take part in, both at the home and in the community?
- 05How would you support my relative to make their own decisions and remain independent?
This inspection covered all five key questions and included observations, discussions and checks of selected records, including three people's care records and four staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2017 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 Brownrigg
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2010.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.