Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Little Brook House

Requires improvementpublished 29 July 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Inspectors found continuing problems with medicines, risk management, safeguarding systems and recruitment checks. Staffing plans were not always achieved, although people's needs were being met during the inspection.
Effective?
Good
This rating improved from Requires Improvement. Staff training and work around consent had improved, and people generally received suitable support with food, drinks and healthcare.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not covered by this focused inspection. Inspectors did observe kind, person-centred support and positive relationships between people and staff.
Responsive?
Good
This key question was not covered by this focused inspection. Inspectors found records did not assure them that people were consistently supported with regular social and leisure activities.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The leadership team had introduced audits and improvement systems, but these did not reliably identify or address problems with medicines, risks and incidents. The new manager was beginning to improve teamwork and consistency.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, July 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines and risk management, although care was effective and improvements were underway.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 and 8 June 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and health professionals. They also checked training and quality records.

The home was not always safe. Inspectors found continuing problems with medicines, risk assessments, safeguarding investigations and some recruitment checks. Planned staffing levels were not always met, although inspectors saw people's care needs being met.

The effective rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Staff had improved training, supported people with eating and drinking, worked with health professionals and had improved their understanding of consent law. The home remained Requires Improvement overall and for well-led because its checks did not find or fix important problems consistently.

What inspectors praised
  • Improved consent practice

    The home had improved its use of mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. It was no longer in breach of the regulation about consent.

    “Sufficient improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 11.” from the report
  • Better staff training

    Training completion had improved and covered subjects relevant to people's needs. Staff also received some practical competency checks.

    “Completion rates of training had improved and the training programme available covered a wide range of subjects including dementia awareness, moving and handling, safeguarding and infection control.” from the report
  • Support with health needs

    Staff worked with community health professionals and made referrals for assessment and treatment when needed.

    “Staff worked closely with a range of community healthcare professionals, and we saw examples where people had been referred to external services for further assessment and treatment.” from the report
  • Kind and person-centred care

    Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Relatives said staff knew people's preferences and treated them with kindness.

    “Throughout the inspection, we observed people's relationships with staff, in all roles, was positive and people seemed relaxed and very comfortable with the staff supporting them.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines were not consistently safe

    serious

    Inspectors found three medicines errors, problems with variable doses and topical creams, and missing guidance for some medicines given when needed. They could not be assured that people always received medicines as prescribed.

    “Medicines were still not being consistently managed safely, and we were not assured people had always received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
  • Risks and incidents were not managed well

    serious

    Some risk plans were missing or unclear. Incidents were not always investigated, recorded or used to prevent similar events, including occasions when people left the home unnoticed.

    “Risk management plans were not always in place or did not provide staff with sufficient, or accurate, information about how they were to mitigate the risks to people's health and wellbeing.” from the report
  • Safeguarding systems needed strengthening

    serious

    Inspectors found a potential safeguarding concern had not been referred to the appropriate outside agencies or CQC. They could not be assured that another concern had been investigated.

    “The systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuse or avoidable harm needed to be more robust.” from the report
  • Recruitment checks were incomplete

    serious

    Some staff records did not include references or a full employment history. The provider had not completed all required recruitment checks.

    “The provider had not ensured all of the required recruitment checks were completed.” from the report
  • Activities were not consistently recorded

    needs fixing

    Inspectors saw activities taking place, but records did not show that people were consistently supported with regular social and leisure activities. Some relatives and staff wanted more activities and outings.

    “However, a review of people's activity records did not provide assurances they were consistently being supported to participate in regular social and leisure activities.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What checks now make sure every medicine, including warfarin, patches, creams and medicines given when needed, is administered and recorded correctly?
  2. 02How do you assess and manage the risk of someone leaving the home without staff knowing?
  3. 03How are safeguarding concerns investigated, recorded and referred to CQC or other agencies when necessary?
  4. 04How do you make sure planned staffing levels are met when staff are off sick?
  5. 05What regular activities and outings are now available, and how do you record people's participation?

This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not covered, and the report says the other ratings carry over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2022

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but serious weaknesses in risk management, medicines, staffing, consent and leadership.

Inspectors visited unannounced on 25 and 26 October 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked records, medicines, staffing, care plans, the building and infection control.

The home was not always safe or effective. Risk assessments and care plans were sometimes incomplete. Medicines records had gaps, staffing was sometimes stretched, some areas needed better cleaning, and staff training and supervision were not reliable. Mental Capacity Act processes were not always followed.

The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and also Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led. There was no evidence that people had been harmed, but inspectors said there was an increased risk that people could be harmed. Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. The previous overall rating was Good, published in September 2020.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and individual care

    Relatives were confident that staff were kind, compassionate and helped people maintain their individuality.

    “Relatives were confident that staff cared for people with kindness and compassion and promoted their family members individuality.” from the report
  • People felt safe

    People spoken to during the inspection said they felt safe in the home.

    “People told us they felt safe at the service.” from the report
  • Working with health professionals

    Staff worked with community health and social care professionals and made referrals for assessment and treatment.

    “There was evidence that staff worked closely with a range of community healthcare professionals” from the report
  • Opportunities to share views

    People, relatives and staff had meetings where they could raise concerns, make suggestions and discuss improvements.

    “Meetings were held where family and friends were able to share their views and discuss issues with the leadership team.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Incomplete risk management

    serious

    Some risks, including falls, choking, seizures, eating and drinking, and overnight safety, were not fully assessed or clearly recorded. Inspectors observed a transfer where wheelchair brakes were not engaged.

    “There was an inconsistent approach to managing risks to people's health and wellbeing.” from the report
  • Medicines records and checks

    serious

    There were unexplained gaps in medicines records, including two occasions where checks indicated medicine had not been given. Instructions and checks for some medicines were also incomplete.

    “Whilst there was no evidence that people had been harmed, medicines were not being managed safely.” from the report
  • Staffing and training

    serious

    Staff were sometimes busy and stressed, with heavy use of different agency workers. Training completion was variable and supervision was not taking place as required.

    “There were insufficient staff available to ensure that people were provided with appropriate support during the lunchtime meal service.” from the report
  • Consent processes

    serious

    Mental capacity assessments and best-interests records were not always completed when needed. Some consent forms for communal cameras had been signed by someone without the legal authority to do so.

    “This was a breach of regulation 11 (Need for Consent) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
  • Weak oversight

    serious

    Audits did not always identify problems or show that they were being dealt with. Leadership changes had affected morale and the consistency of management support.

    “The provider had not ensured that there were effective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the service.” from the report
  • Cleaning and environment

    needs fixing

    Inspectors found dirty window ledges, sticky tables, stained carpets and some worn or inaccessible areas. Cleaning schedules showed that planned daily cleaning was not always completed.

    “However, there were some areas where the cleaning and infection control measures needed to be improved.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to risk assessments and care plans for choking, falls, seizures, eating and drinking, and overnight checks?
  2. 02How are medicines administration records now checked, and how are missed or unexplained doses followed up?
  3. 03What percentage of staff have now completed the required training, especially safeguarding and positive behaviour support?
  4. 04How many permanent staff are normally on duty, and how is the home reducing its reliance on unfamiliar agency workers?
  5. 05How are mental capacity assessments, best-interests decisions and consent for surveillance cameras now recorded and reviewed?

This report rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated, and the previous overall rating of Good was from September 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Little Brook House

6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Little Brook House →

  2. December 2022Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Little Brook House →

  3. September 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. March 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. March 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. November 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. August 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 November 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire

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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.

“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
Emily B., about Prisca S.
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Roderick N., about Jaison M.
See live-in carers near HampshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.