CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shaftesbury Brookside House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, effective safeguarding and risk management, and safe medicines systems. The home was working to comply with recommendations in a London Fire Brigade notice issued in January 2019.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained for people's individual needs, and people had access to food, healthcare and an adapted environment.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptionally caring relationships. People were treated with dignity and respect, involved in decisions, and supported to make choices and become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised and flexible. People were supported with communication, relationships, activities, community life and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptional leadership, a strong person-centred culture and effective systems for listening to people, learning from events and improving care.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led support, with safe and effective care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, eight staff members, relatives and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Caring, Responsive and Well-led were Outstanding. Safe and Effective were Good. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised support, good training, safe medicines management and enough staff to meet people's needs.
People were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities in the home and community. Inspectors also noted that the home was larger than current best practice guidance, and that it was working to comply with recommendations in a London Fire Brigade notice.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave very positive feedback about staff. Inspectors observed warm relationships and consistent respect for privacy, dignity and personal choice.
“The staff are kind and helpful. They have helped make this my home.” from the report
Independence and choice
People were supported to use technology, travel, take part in recruitment and meetings, and develop everyday skills. Staff helped people overcome barriers to independence.
“Staff were very pro-active in helping people overcome barriers to independence.” from the report
Activities and community life
The home offered varied activities and helped people follow their own interests, including sport, singing, swimming, trips and community events.
“People were supported to engage in a varied range of activities and past times, all designed to encourage social inclusion and independence.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team had a clear vision and used feedback, audits and improvement plans to develop the service. People and staff were involved in running the home.
“There was a clear sense of belonging and community.” from the report
Trained staff and safe medicines
Staff received training suited to people's needs, with competency checks for medicines. Medicines were stored securely and records were checked.
“Staff were unable to administer medicines unless they were trained to do so.” from the report
Fire safety recommendations
needs fixingAt the inspection, the home was still working to comply with recommendations in a London Fire Brigade notice issued in January 2019. Ask what has since been completed.
“At the time of the inspection, the service was working to comply with a notice issued by London Fire Brigade in January 2019 where recommendations were made.” from the report
Larger than current best practice guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to 24 people and 20 people were living there. Inspectors said its design and location reduced the possible negative effect of its size.
“The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
- 01What recommendations from the January 2019 London Fire Brigade notice have been completed, and is any work still outstanding?
- 02How do staffing levels change when people need support to attend appointments, events or activities outside the home?
- 03How would you support my relative to build independence and take part in activities that interest them?
- 04How are medicines stored and given privately, and how do you check that staff remain competent?
- 05How are people and families involved in residents' meetings, care planning and decisions about the home?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five key questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 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
Shaftesbury Brookside House is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and accessibility issues to improve.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 30 November and 5 December 2016. Inspectors spoke with 14 people, three relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records and staff files, and observed care.
People said they were happy and felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicines checks and staff who understood safeguarding, consent and people's health needs. Care was kind and respectful, and people were supported to make choices and stay independent.
The home offered varied activities, personalised flats and accessible support. It also had complaint systems and regular checks on quality. Inspectors identified some gaps in records, including medicine information, risk instructions, care plan involvement and turning charts.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection in January 2014 found that all standards inspected were met.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe. The home made it easier to raise concerns through safeguarding training, posters and a discreet red card system.
“People told us they felt safe at the service and we saw that staff had a good understanding of safeguarding adults” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were warm, involved and respectful. They supported people with eating, drinking, privacy, dignity and personal preferences.
“We saw staff were very engaged and warm towards people and knew their preferences and always checked what people might like.” from the report
Good activities and independence
People could choose from activities, trips and holidays. The home also used technology and practical support to help people do more for themselves.
“There was a three monthly agenda of trips and activities advertised in advance for people to choose from.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The registered manager and provider carried out audits and reviewed complaints, incidents, care plans and people's feedback.
“There was evidence of monitoring and auditing of the quality of the service given by the registered manager and the provider.” from the report
Medicine information was incomplete
needs fixingCare records did not explain what medicines were for or which side effects to watch for. During one observation, a staff member did not wash their hands or use protective gloves when giving drops.
“There was no description in people's records of what medicines were used to treat and what side effects to look out for” from the report
Some risk instructions were too general
needs fixingMost risk assessments were detailed, but some did not clearly explain how staff should reduce risks. The manager agreed to review them.
“Although most risk assessments seen contained good detail some were a little generic” from the report
Care plan involvement was not always recorded
needs fixingPeople told inspectors they were involved in care planning, but the records were not signed and did not always show that people or relatives had been involved.
“We saw plans were individualised however the actual care plans were not signed and did not always state people and their relatives had been involved.” from the report
Some monitoring records were incomplete
needs fixingOne person's turning chart was not always completed every four hours. The records did not clearly show when the person had asked not to be disturbed.
“We saw one person's turning chart records were not always filled in every four hours as stated.” from the report
Garden access was limited
minorThe back garden was not accessible to wheelchair users because of the building layout. A second lift was planned for summer 2017, but this report does not confirm that the work was completed.
“The garden required work undertaken to make it accessible for wheel chair users.” from the report
- 01Have you added clear information to each person's records about what their medicines are for and possible side effects?
- 02How do you make sure staff use handwashing and protective gloves when administering eye or ear drops?
- 03How are people and relatives' involvement in care planning recorded and signed?
- 04How do you record when someone asks not to be disturbed during planned turning or other health checks?
- 05Has the planned second lift been installed, and can wheelchair users now access the back garden?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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 Shaftesbury Brookside House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- August 2019Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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 an hour of Barnet
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on life.”
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.