Brookfield Residential Home

Updated 20 November 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.

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. 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.

This inspection took place on 28 October 2020 and was announced.

Updated 20 November 2020

Brookfield Residential Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Brookfield Residential Care Home consists of a two storey building and is registered to accommodate up to 14 people. At the time of this inspection there were 10 older people living at the service.

This unannounced inspection took place on the 21, 22 and 23 March 2018. At our previous inspection on 5 February 2016 the service was rated as 'Good'. At this inspection the rating had improved to 'Outstanding'.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People remained safe because there were systems and processes in place to protect them. Staff, as a result of their training in safeguarding people, understood the different types of harm and to who they could report this to. Risk assessments were in place and these promoted people's safety such as when mobilising around the service. Incidents such as falls were used as an opportunity for learning and to help drive improvements. Medicines were administered, recorded and stored in a safe manner and all staff who administered medicines had received suitable training to do this. Enough staff were employed to ensure that people’s needs could be met in a timely manner. Staff were aware of infection control measures and the service was clean and well maintained. Staff were subject to checks on their suitability before they were offered employment. People who used the service were involved with the recruitment of staff.

People received an effective service and were supported by staff who had received an appropriate induction. Staff were encouraged to take up training opportunities and to further their knowledge, especially around people’s health care conditions. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible: the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff knew when people needed support and also when to respect people's independence. Staff were supported in their role and they knew what standard of care was expected. People were enabled to access healthcare services. People's nutritional needs were met by staff who knew each person's needs well.

People received outstanding care. We received extremely positive comments from a range of people about the caring nature of the service. People received very high quality care from staff who had the time to spend with them and their families. Staff showed kindness to people in everything they did by offering exceptionally friendly support around their individual needs. People were able to retain their interests and routines, and staff fitted in around these. People were at the heart of the service as staff put people first and foremost in everything. People's care plans contained relevant personalised information and these gave staff the information they needed in meeting people's needs. Staff used people's life histories to help them to understand what was important to each and every person. Staff told us about how it was important that people were enabled to be independent. They told us how they worked in a way to protect people’s privacy and dignity.

People received an outstanding responsive service. There was plenty of meaningful stimulation for people and many opportunities for people to stay connected to their pasts. Staff encouraged people to retain their independence and uphold people's dignity. People were completely involved in their care. Staff saw people's well-being and community engagement as being important. The service and its staff team supported people to feel good about themselves and to have positive emotions by encouraging people to stay active and socialise with others. This also enabled people to play an active part in the community. There were regular planned and spontaneous activities, which took into account people's individual interests and hobbies and this helped prevent social isolation. Concerns were responded to before they became a complaint Staff worked well with other stakeholders to ensure that peoples end of life care was well managed.

People received a well led service. The registered manager had fostered a highly positive working relationship between staff and relevant stakeholders. The registered manager motivated the staff team with regular meetings, formal supervisions and mentoring. The registered manager understood their responsibilities and worked with people, staff and the provider to improve the quality and safety of care that was provided. Quality assurance procedures, a programme of audits and leadership were effective in driving continual improvements to the quality of service that was provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.