Background to this inspection
Updated
14 August 2020
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes. This inspection took place on 11 August 2020 and was announced.
Brookfield is a residential care home that provides accommodation and care for up to 14 people with mental health needs. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review, which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.
Updated
14 August 2020
About the service:
Brookfield is a residential care home that provides accommodation for up to 14 people with mental health needs who require support with personal care. There were 14 people living at Brookfield at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
The environment remained well maintained and a calm and relaxed atmosphere was still prominent. A visiting professional told us, “I was amazed at the standards of accommodation for people with high profile needs; other people don’t get the standard of accommodation as here.”
The staff provided effective care for people because detailed person-centred care plans were in place. People were involved in regular reviews of their care plans. One person said, “They always involve me in care planning and I discuss this with staff”.
Staff showed a genuine motivation to deliver care in a person-centred way based on people's preferences and likes. People were observed to have good relationships with the staff team.
We saw complaints and concerns were minimal. The service had one complaint logged by a person using the service and the registered manager had acted on this. The service demonstrated they had investigated and responded to this in line with their policy. However, we recommend that the service records the action taken and any lessons learnt more robustly. The registered manager agreed to address this feedback immediately following our inspection.
Accidents and incidents were minimal and continued to be appropriately managed and recorded. Trends were spotted by reviewing each accident or incident. We recommend that an analysis process is used to identify trends, if the number of events increased.
People were involved in their day to day lives through being empowered to make their own choices about what they do with their time. People participated in activities that met their individual choices and preferences. People’s independence was promoted. One person said, “Staff promote my independence and I can do what I want. I can choose when I get up and go to bed; I like to get up early and I choose my own food.”
The service kept people informed and tried to reach out to people’s families and friends. We recommend that the service uses tools such as newsletters to keep people, families and friends informed. The provider confirmed they had implemented newsletters the day after the site inspection.
People's health and well- being were well managed as staff maintained positive links with health professionals. Upon arrival on the first day of the site inspection, the registered manager had taken people to attend their health appointments. This showed the registered manager continued to play an active role in supporting people to manage their health and meet their needs.
Medication administration records (MAR) were provided to support people’s hospital admissions. We recommend that the service uses tools such as health passports (a piece of documentation that details people’s health needs and contains other useful information) to support people when accessing other services. The provider issued evidence of the tools they intended to use the day after the site visit.
Equality and diversity was promoted. We observed people eating different foods in line with their cultural and religious needs. We also saw people dressed in specific items of clothing to meet their religious requirements.
Staff worked in partnership with the community, other services and organisations. We saw multi-disciplinary team meetings were scheduled to discuss people’s needs and wishes. People had links with other organisations to access services, such as adult learning courses. People were also supported to take upon voluntary work. One person said, “I complete voluntary work in an environment that is important to me.”
The service continued to meet the characteristics of Good in all areas; more information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection:
Good (report published 16 May 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good in all areas and Good overall.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner. We will follow up on our recommendations at the next scheduled inspection.