Brookfield Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and their relatives confirmed that they had input into their care plans and that likes and dislikes had been included. All were happy with the way staff supported them with their mobility and personal care. One relative told us that when their family member moved in there was initially lots of discussion about the person’s needs. They told us that staff set out a full care plan, ensured the needs were recorded and the plan was put into practice.

The manager explained the process when people moved into the home and how information was gathered to ensure the staff could meet their needs. They explained that documentation was completed prior to admission and then time was spent with the person to find out more about their culture, routines and what would make the home familiar. Staff told us they were made aware of the needs of people when they moved into the care home, following the pre-admission assessments completed by management.

Records held details of important information about health and social care professionals who would be involved in people's care.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence based care.

Staff told us the training and support was very good and gave them the skills they needed to deliver people’s care and treatment to them. A newer staff member told us they had attended training courses and shadowed an experienced staff member.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence based care.

Staff told us the training and support was very good and gave them the skills they needed to deliver people’s care and treatment to them. A newer staff member told us they had attended training courses and shadowed an experienced staff member.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were well cared for. All people we spoke with felt staff knew them well enough to recognise when they were not themselves. One person said, “If you have anything wrong and you are not feeling well, they will get a doctor or a nurse in. They do recognise if I am feeling off colour.” While another person said, “You can tell [staff] if you are not feeling well, and they do listen, and they will contact the doctor or nurse.” Staff shared examples of how they supported people to live healthier lives. For example, putting prompt measures in place for a person who was found to be losing weight. The provider had systems in place to ensure people had access to health and social care services as and when they needed them.

At the last inspection we found there was a lack of accurate and complete records in respect of each service user. There were inconsistencies in the records related to risk assessments and plans of care, particularly where people's needs had changed.

At this visit we found this had improved and the service was no longer in breach.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People experienced good outcomes because of the support provided to them. All staff we spoke with said they thought standards of care were good, which led to positive outcomes for people. Feedback from external healthcare professionals confirmed they had no concerns about how people’s care and support was currently being managed. The management team monitored people's care and support as well as any specific health care needs, such as diabetes or weight loss. Care plans were reviewed and updated whenever there were any changes in a person’s care needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

At the last inspection there were concerns regarding management of capacity for people living at the service. Since then, the manager has added an audit of mental capacity assessments and plans to their regular oversight and added information to the care plans. At this visit we saw whilst they had recorded 1 person had capacity regarding their medicines their record showed a new medicine had been added and staff had said they did not have capacity. We discussed the potential impact for the person and the manager said they would review this. This was discussed with the manager at the time and the records were reviewed and amended.

People felt staff respected their wishes and listened to them. One person told us, “Yes, you do have a choice. You can choose when you get up or go to bed. I am asked if I want a ‘comfort check’ at night.” While another person said, “‘I can do most things I want to; they don’t say you can’t do this or that.” We heard staff seeking consent prior to providing support. Relatives told us they were involved in certain decisions in line with people's best interests. Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual capacity to make decisions about their care and support. We saw staff promote and respect people's choices. Records showed multi-disciplinary teams had been contacted and involved in this aspect of people's care. The provider had systems in place for assessing and recording people’s capacity. The provider was working in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.