CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Brunswick House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found sufficient staff, safe recruitment, effective medicines systems, reviewed risk assessments and suitable infection control arrangements. They noted that some care plans needed clearer guidance about calming and reassuring people when they became upset.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff worked with health professionals. Nutrition and hydration were monitored, staff training was comprehensive, and the Mental Capacity Act principles were followed.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager had clear oversight, regular checks and audits were completed, and people, relatives and staff felt able to give feedback. Inspectors said more person-centred information was needed in some care records.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Brunswick House is rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found safe, effective care, but the well-led rating fell to Good and some care records needed more detail.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 17 and 26 January 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control, effective support from health professionals, and strong management oversight. People and relatives were generally very positive about the care and staff.
The overall rating remained Outstanding because the ratings for Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. These two areas were not inspected during this visit. The well-led rating changed from Outstanding to Good.
Kind, trusted staff
People and relatives described warm relationships with staff. Inspectors found that staff knew people well and provided care discreetly and compassionately.
“People and relatives were very positive about the caring nature of staff and had good relationships with them.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
There were enough staff to support people safely, recruitment checks were completed, and medicines were prescribed, given and stored safely.
“People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to prescribe, administer and store medicines safely.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals. Referrals and communication helped provide consistent care when people's needs changed.
“Staff worked with a range of other professionals, including GPs, dieticians, tissue viability nurses, speech and language therapy, social workers and the mental health team.” from the report
Strong management systems
The home had regular internal checks, external checks of those systems, and feedback processes for people, relatives and staff.
“Regular internal checks and audits were completed to monitor service provision, and external systems were in place to check the effectiveness of the audits carried out internally.” from the report
Care plans needed clearer calming guidance
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain clearly enough how staff should de-escalate and reassure a person who became upset. Inspectors discussed adding this information so it would be available to all staff.
“We discussed that the care plans should also include information about how to de-escalate and reassure a person if they became upset.” from the report
Some people were not engaged at one point
minorOn the first inspection day, inspectors saw people on the middle floor sitting with staff without being engaged or stimulated.
“People on the middle floor, on the first day of inspection, were not engaged or stimulated as they sat with staff.” from the report
More person-centred record detail was needed
needs fixingInspectors discussed adding information to care records about how people wanted or needed to be cared for, so that all staff could follow their preferences.
“We discussed the additional information to be added to care records to ensure person-centred guidance was available for all staff about how people wanted or needed to be cared for.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans to explain how each person should be reassured when they become upset?
- 02How do you make sure people on every floor are engaged and stimulated throughout the day?
- 03What person-centred information is now included in care records, and how do temporary or agency staff access it?
- 04How do you check that staff follow guidance from GPs, dieticians, nurses and other professionals?
- 05Which areas were last assessed under the previous comprehensive inspection rather than during this visit?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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, February 2020
Brunswick House rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led support, with safe and effective care rated Good.
This was a planned inspection over 20 and 21 November 2019. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, managers and outside professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines records and quality checks.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people very well, supported their choices and encouraged independence. Care was tailored to individual needs, interests and relationships, with a wide range of activities and strong links with families and the local community.
The home had enough staff, safe recruitment, good medicines systems and suitable risk checks. Care plans were detailed and kept up to date. Staff were well trained, worked closely with health professionals and supported people to eat, drink and stay healthier.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding, while Safe and Effective were rated Good. The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection, published on 6 April 2017.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff treated people with exceptional kindness and compassion. They protected privacy and dignity and understood people's individual needs.
“People were treated exceptionally well by staff who displayed strong caring values, such as patience, kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's wishes, preferences and goals. Staff adapted support when needs changed and helped people achieve positive outcomes.
“Staff delivered extremely person-centred care. They focussed on what was important to people and helped people to achieve their personalised goals and positive outcomes.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to enjoy hobbies, make friends and stay in contact with family. Activities were adapted so that people who could not attend group events could still take part.
“A wide variety of stimulating activities were organised for people. They reflected people's individual needs, wishes and preferences to enrich their lives.” from the report
Strong leadership
The registered manager and senior team promoted learning, staff involvement and continuous improvement. Regular audits and meetings helped them monitor quality and safety.
“A solid quality assurance process was embedded throughout the service.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely, robust recruitment checks and well-managed medicines. Records and audits were up to date.
“There were enough staff deployed throughout the day and night to provide a safe and consistent service to people which met their needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific needs, wishes and preferences, and how often would their care plan be reviewed?
- 02What activities could my relative take part in, including if they cannot attend group activities?
- 03How would you support my relative to keep in contact with family and maintain important relationships?
- 04How would you manage my relative's medicines, risks and staffing needs?
- 05How would you record and respect my relative's communication needs and end of life wishes?
This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided; the first day was unannounced and the second day was arranged with the registered manager. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
Every inspection of Brunswick House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Outstanding.
- March 2023Outstandingcurrent ratingstayed OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- February 2020Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
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.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 April 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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £1,160 a week. 30 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.