CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brownscombe Residency
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were regularly assessed and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Inspectors also found safe recruitment, safe medicines management and effective infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and care was adapted when needs changed. Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with nutrition, healthcare, oral care and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager provided clear direction and staff felt supported. Quality and safety systems were effective, and people, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Brownscombe Residency rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with earlier concerns about training and healthcare access addressed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 April 2023. Inspectors spoke with three people living in the home, five relatives and eight staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records and staff recruitment files.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough suitably recruited staff. People received care from staff who understood their needs.
The inspection followed concerns about staff training and access to healthcare. The provider had made changes, including updating training, and inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit.
Staff understood people
People and relatives were positive about the staff. Inspectors found that staff knew people's needs and preferences well.
“People and relatives were all consistently positive about the staff and the support they received.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough staff, and the home had an established team. Recruitment checks were completed before new staff started.
“There were enough safely recruited staff to support people safely.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Staff were trained and checked as competent before giving medicines. Records were audited and there was clear guidance about medicines given when needed.
“Staff completed medication administration records (MAR charts) following the administration of medicines.” from the report
People had choice
Staff supported people to make choices and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Best-interest decisions involved families and professionals where appropriate.
“People's care was provided in line with the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Open management
The manager was described as approachable and available. People, relatives and staff could raise concerns and suggest improvements.
“We observed kind and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Earlier training concerns
minorThe inspection was prompted partly by concerns that staff training was not sufficient in some areas. The provider had recognised and addressed the shortfalls before inspectors visited.
“We received concerns about staff training not being sufficient in some areas prior to the inspection.” from the report
Earlier healthcare access concerns
minorThere had also been concerns that people were not always supported to access healthcare when needed. The manager had made changes, including updating staff training, and inspectors found no evidence of harm from this concern.
“We received concerns that people were not always supported to access healthcare services when they needed to.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to staff training after the concerns raised before this inspection?
- 02How do you check that staff keep their training and skills up to date?
- 03How do you make sure people see doctors, dentists and other healthcare professionals when they need to?
- 04How are medicines given when needed, and how do you check that these records are accurate?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in care planning and in raising concerns or suggesting improvements?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the overall rating used ratings from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 July 2023 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, July 2019
Brownscombe Residency was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 30 May 2019. Two inspectors and a dementia specialist nurse observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints and audits.
The inspectors found that people were safe and that risks, medicines, staffing and infection control were managed well. Staff understood safeguarding and people said they received help when they needed it.
Care was tailored to people's needs, choices and routines. People were treated with kindness and dignity, supported to take part in activities, and involved in decisions about their care. The home also had systems for handling complaints and improving quality.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 22 December 2016.
Safe care
The home had personalised risk assessments, safe recruitment checks and systems for safeguarding people. Medicines records were clearly completed and checked.
“Thorough risk assessments were seen in each care plan that we reviewed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm interactions, and people said staff were kind and respectful. Staff supported privacy, choice and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's life histories, preferences and routines. Care plans were regularly reviewed and activities were based on people's interests.
“People received a personalised service and were involved in developing their care plans.” from the report
Good leadership
The management team was visible and approachable. Staff, people and relatives felt listened to, and audits were used to maintain standards.
“There was a positive culture within the service where people, staff and relatives felt listened to.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently make sure staffing levels are enough when people’s needs change or staff are busy?
- 02How are care plans reviewed with the person and their relatives, and how are changes passed on to all staff?
- 03What activities are available now for people with dementia and for people’s individual hobbies and interests?
- 04How do you monitor medicines records and respond if a medicines error is found?
- 05How do you use feedback, complaints and accidents to make improvements?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 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 Brownscombe Residency
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.