Brockworth House Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

There was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement. This was based on meeting the needs of people who lived at Brockworth House Care Centre and the wider community. The manager and staff promoted good ties within their local community and were in the process, at the time of the inspection, to further these by inviting local groups to adopt parts of the gardens. The manager proactively supported staff and collaborated with health professionals to deliver care, which was safe, integrated, person-centred and sustainable. The manager had worked to reduce inequalities. There was effective governance and management systems. There was information about risks and appropriate systems were in place to monitor risk and promote positive risk taking. Performance monitoring systems were in place and the outcome of these were used effectively to improve care.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us “This is a real service; everyone can speak to everyone. Residents being happy is our top priority.” Staff told us what the provider’s values were and spoke about trust and honesty being the most important aspects of those values. Staff told us they felt supported by the new manager but acknowledged the difficulties of the last few months with the uncertainty which came with having multiple interim managers. The manager told us “I'm passionate and excited about what I do. I want to deliver the best quality care to people".

The provider promoted a shared vision and culture for the service. The organisation’s values were outlined to staff when they started working for the service and the provider shared this in a Nurses Workforce Strategy document produced by the provider. This emphasised their core values of ‘respect, nurture and inspire’. The provider demonstrated a commitment to equality, and diversity in the workplace through its equality, diversity and inclusion policy and in the way they delivered care. We saw evidence the manager conducted daily walkarounds and noted areas for improvement in both the environment and people’s care.

Staff told us they felt valued working at the service, and most staff felt positive about the new manager. Some staff told us the manager was not compassionate or inclusive and they had felt bullied by other staff and the manager. Staff told us they had felt isolated when there was no permanent manager. The manager told us practices which had been implemented due to the previous inspection had been embedded, for example, the daily huddle meetings with the nursing staff and other heads of departments. We observed a meeting on the second day of our inspection. The manager was confident when explaining about their role and responsibilities. The manager was aware of the Duty of Candour, and we saw evidence they were meeting their obligations in relation to this. We saw evidence the manager followed the correct procedures for escalating concerns, made by staff, to the area manager. We saw evidence the manager had responded to a complaint, made by a relative about a staff member, in a compassionate way.

The manager at the time of the inspection had only been in post for a few weeks, however they had previously been an Operations Support Manager with the provider and had been supporting another service before coming to Brockworth House Care Centre. We saw evidence the manager was competent. We observed the manager interacting with people where they exhibited leadership qualities, for example, we observed the manager professionally investigate an allegation made by a staff member about another staff member. We saw evidence the provider had systems and processes in place to develop and offer continuous training to the manager through a bespoke online development platform. We saw evidence the provider offered support to the manager and observed a close professional relationship between the manager and the area manager.

We received mixed feedback from staff. Some staff told us they were able to speak up if they had concerns. Other staff told us they were not always confident the current manager would be responsive to concerns and feedback for improvements. Staff were aware of the complaints and whistleblowing polices. The manager told us about a new initiative they were implementing called ‘Wellbeing Wednesday’ where staff would have a safe space to come and raise concerns, speak about their mental health, or ask questions outside of staff meetings. The manager told us they would also have a staff member from the Human Resources (HR) department attend to give staff access to additional resources.

We saw evidence staff, relatives and people who lived at the service, had access to numerous options for giving feedback both known and anonymously. These included whistleblowing posters with an email address, feedback forms with a postage paid envelope and a campaign called ‘Speak Up, Listen Up’. Satisfaction surveys for staff and people who lived at the service were conducted annually and the results printed in a ‘Care Service Satisfaction Survey’ publication which was available to everyone.

Most staff felt empowered and were confident their concerns and ideas resulted in positive change to shape the service and create a more equitable and inclusive organisation. We saw there were male care workers employed by the service, but these were fewer than the number of female care workers. Some staff told us they sometimes felt bullied if they were not British. We saw evidence the manager was aware of these allegations and acted in line with the services equality, diversity and inclusion policies. We observed staff utilising the service’s in-house systems for making complaints in relation to their concerns over being treated inequitably.

Staff were kept up to date with things affecting the overall service via team meetings and conversations on an on-going basis. Additional meetings took place on a regular basis as part of the service’s handover system to ensure consistency of care and support. The manager took action to prevent and address bullying and harassment at all levels and for all staff. There were clear processes in place to support people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those from excluded and marginalised groups.

We received mixed feedback from staff. Some staff told us they felt the service was managed well, and they welcomed the new manager. Other staff told us they felt the new manager was not effective and did not listen to their opinions. Staff told us they knew what they were supposed to do, in terms of their roles and responsibilities, but said they were not always made aware of changes in a timely way. The manager told us about the governance systems in place and how trends are identified and followed through.

We saw evidence of audits and action plans. We saw the provider had business continuity plans and an up-to-date risk register. We saw the provider had a governance structure in place and roles and responsibilities were clearly defined. We saw the provider had arrangements in place for information security, data protection and systems to comply with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) requirements. We saw evidence the provider had oversight of quality improvement audits and action plans, as well as systems in place for people to report concerns. We saw evidence the provider had workforce planning systems in place. We saw evidence of a provider wide strategy to increase the green spaces in all the provider’s services. At Brockworth House Care Centre they were focused on areas of the nearby woodland to make it more wheelchair friendly.

People confirmed their needs were met by staff in partnership with relevant health and social care professionals.

Staff told us the service had ties to the local community, especially the garden centre. Staff told us they felt proud to tell people they worked at the service. Staff told us other care services in the local area are more well-known, but Brockworth House Care Centre had a good reputation. The manager told us they wanted to engage more with local community groups and have offered a local Scout group an opportunity to adopt part of the gardens. The manager told us they had also reached out to a local children’s nursery. The manager told us the local Methodist church was very closely involved with the service and is listed as a place of refuge in their emergency evacuation plans.

Health and social care professionals confirmed the service was open, transparent and worked in partnership with them to support care provision, service development and joined up health and social care.

Processes and systems were in place which supported effective partnership working. The manager had initiatives in place to share practice and worked collaboratively with the community to improve outcomes and experiences for people living at the service. We saw evidence of collaborative meetings for infection control with other care services under the same provider. We saw evidence of the service having an open day and inviting the local school’s choir to sing at the service during Christmas. We saw evidence of collaborative working with volunteers to support work in the gardens.

Staff told us they felt the current on-line training was not very effective. Staff told us the in-house trainer does not conduct many training courses face to face, and the focus is mainly on fire safety and moving and handling. Staff told us the moving and handling training is not a structured course, and only consisted of the trainer watching staff complete moving and handling tasks and correcting them if they are performed incorrectly. One staff member told us they had applied for an Apprenticeship but had been told they were not successful but were not informed as to why. Staff told us they wanted more training in dementia care and specific conditions. The manager told us they were supportive of staff development, and offered preceptorships for those who wanted to transition to different roles. This involved extra support and guidance from more experienced members of staff. The service did not employ senior carers, and so we noted opportunities for staff development were limited.

We saw evidence the service had implemented a ‘Resident of the Day’ initiative and saw evidence of a Key Worker system being re-introduced. We saw evidence the provider had sustained improvements made after the previous CQC inspection and these improvements had been embedded. We saw evidence of reviews in place for areas such as activities, music therapy, the environment and menus and this included feedback from people who lived at Brockworth House Care Centre.