CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Brookside
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and inspectors found suitable staffing, recruitment and safeguarding arrangements. However, some personal emergency evacuation plans lacked specific instructions, and some medicines protocols needed more detail.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had a broad range of training, and people received support with food, healthcare and consent. Diabetes care plans did not explain signs of deterioration or what staff should do if someone became unwell.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors saw exceptionally kind and compassionate care. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and helped them maintain relationships and take part in meaningful activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home offered person-centred care, a wide range of activities and support to maintain relationships. Some daily records were vague, and records of people's future and end-of-life wishes lacked detail.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable leadership, strong involvement of people and relatives, and effective quality checks. This rating had fallen from Outstanding at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring, but inspectors found gaps in some care plans, evacuation plans and medicines guidance.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 7 August 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People said they felt safe and described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good training, clean surroundings, suitable healthcare support and strong activities. Caring was rated Outstanding because staff showed exceptional compassion and adapted support to individual people.
There were some areas to improve. Some care plans did not reflect changes in anxiety or behaviour, evacuation plans lacked enough detail, and some medicines guidance was incomplete. Diabetes care plans and information about people's future and end-of-life wishes also lacked detail.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were Good, while Caring was Outstanding. Compared with the previous inspection, the overall rating fell from Outstanding to Good, and Well-led fell from Outstanding to Good, while the other four question ratings stayed the same.
Compassionate care
Staff adapted their approach to each person and offered comfort during distress and bereavement. People and relatives consistently described staff as kind and caring.
“The kind and compassionate care people received exceeded expectations.” from the report
Meaningful activities
The home provided varied group and one-to-one activities, including outings, themed events, gardening and time with relatives.
“A broad range of activities were offered and delivered by the activities team.” from the report
People's choices
People were supported to choose their routines, where they spent their day and how they joined activities. Their views were used when the home made changes.
“There was a strong culture where people's views and suggestions were taken seriously” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors observed enough staff to meet people's needs. New staff received induction and staff had training in areas including safeguarding, first aid and infection control.
“People were supported by staff who had completed training in a range of areas.” from the report
Community and healthcare links
The home worked with community healthcare teams and made referrals when people's needs changed. A healthcare professional said the home acted on guidance and advice.
“There were good relationships between the home and the community healthcare teams.” from the report
Care plans not always updated
needs fixingSome care plans did not reflect increased anxiety or changes in behaviour. Staff instructions on how to divert or distract people were not always detailed.
“The care plan lacked updated detail on how staff were to support the person during these periods” from the report
Emergency evacuation information
needs fixingPersonal emergency evacuation plans did not always say clearly how each person should be helped to reach safety or what equipment should be used.
“There was a lack of guidance on how people can reach a place of safety in the event of any emergency.” from the report
Medicines guidance
needs fixingSome instructions for medicines given when needed did not explain the symptoms staff should look for. Pharmacy advice about disguising medicines had also not been recorded, and one expired eye drop was found and disposed of.
“Some lacked detail on the symptoms staff should be aware of for each person to help them decide when these medicines should be given.” from the report
Diabetes information
needs fixingDiabetes care plans did not give staff enough information about signs of high or low blood sugar or what to do if someone became unwell.
“People's diabetic care plans did not include information for staff to follow as guidance if the person became unwell.” from the report
Future and end-of-life wishes
needs fixingSome records did not contain enough information about people's advance decisions, treatment plans or end-of-life wishes. In one case, the same lack of engagement had been recorded since 2016 without other ways being explored.
“Although care records lacked information about people's future wishes they were reviewed monthly by staff.” from the report
Daily records
minorSome records about how people spent their days were vague and did not explain how staff had supported them.
“Others were vague and referred for example to having a 'settled day', which did not describe how the person was supported.” from the report
- 01How have you updated personal emergency evacuation plans so they explain exactly how each person will be supported to reach safety?
- 02How do you make sure care plans are reviewed promptly when anxiety, behaviour or other needs change?
- 03What has changed in your guidance for medicines taken when required, including recording pharmacy advice for disguised medicines?
- 04How do you identify and respond to signs of high or low blood sugar, and where is this recorded in each person's care plan?
- 05How do you help people discuss and record their future and end-of-life wishes when they do not want to have the conversation?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided; the first day was unannounced and the second day was announced. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 October 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
OSJCT Brookside was rated Outstanding overall, with especially caring and well-led support, although a few records and safety checks needed attention.
This was the home's first rated inspection. The visit took place on 18 and 23 November 2016. It was unannounced on the first day. Inspectors observed care, spoke with 12 people, two relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, recruitment files and management records.
Inspectors found the home safe, effective and responsive, with Good ratings in these areas. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, people received suitable food and drink, and care plans explained people's needs and preferences. There were some minor issues, including undated sharps bins and two fluid charts that had not been totalled.
Care and leadership were rated Outstanding. People were treated with kindness and respect, involved in decisions about the home, and supported to maintain relationships, interests and independence. The overall Outstanding rating means the inspectors found exceptionally good care and leadership at the time of this inspection.
Kind and compassionate care
Inspectors saw staff respond patiently and warmly when people were distressed. People and relatives described staff as caring and respectful.
“People and relatives told us staff were very caring, kind and compassionate.” from the report
Strong leadership
Staff felt supported and valued. The manager was visible, encouraged development and acted on feedback from people, staff and audits.
“There were regular quality assurance audits which, where shortfalls were identified, were addressed in a timely manner and monitored to ensure standards were maintained.” from the report
Good support for people living with dementia
Life story books, personalised spaces and a dementia-focused environment helped people feel secure and supported. Staff worked with families to understand each person's history and needs.
“Staff worked with people and families to create life story books which gave comfort to the person and celebrated their life.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were given on time and according to clear procedures. Individual risk assessments covered issues such as mobility, dehydration and health risks.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines on time and in a place of their choosing.” from the report
Sharps bins were not dated
needs fixingSmall sharps bins in the medicines room had not been dated when opened or when full. This made it unclear when they should be collected and disposed of.
“The bins had not been dated when opened or when full with a label attached, it was therefore not clear when they required collection and disposal.” from the report
Menus were not pictorial
minorThe home used written menus but did not have pictorial menus. Inspectors said this may have made it harder for some people to identify the food choices.
“This meant that people may have had difficulties identifying what was written on the menus.” from the report
- 01How were the undated sharps bins dealt with, and what checks are now in place?
- 02How do you make sure fluid charts are totalled and acted on when someone may not be drinking enough?
- 03Are pictorial menus now available for people who may have difficulty reading written menus?
- 04Have activities been extended to seven days a week as planned?
- 05How are residents and families involved in decisions about care, menus and changes to the home?
This was the first rated inspection and covered all five key questions, following a previous compliant inspection in March 2014. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 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 OSJCT Brookside
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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.
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 two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.