Brookfield Residential Care Home Limited

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Information about the admission, assessment and care planning process was detailed within the Service User Guide.

Most people had lived at Brookfield for a considerable time. A new referral had been received for the current vacancy. The provider was mindful of carrying out a thorough assessment to ensure new people moving into the home would complement the established resident group. Opportunities had been provided for the person to visit the home for lunch, enabling them to meet other people living at the home and the staff. These visits along with formal assessments enabled the provider to make an informed decision about the suitability of the placement.

Assessments completed, including those by the local authority, would then be used to inform the development of a care plan, outlining the person’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. We were told people and relevant others were encouraged to be involved in the planning and review of their support. However, this was not always reflected in their care records.

One staff member said, “Yes, I do feel that the care plans could be expanded more on some with more information. The existing staff know people, but the care plans are not robust enough for someone who doesn’t know them.” Following our visit the provider informed us a full review of care plans and risk assessments had already been initiated to ensure sufficient information was provided, reflecting people’s current and changing needs.

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 good practice and standards.

People were involved in planning the weekly menu. Changes had been made to the weekly food shop and meals provided, with more fresh home cooked meals. People told us, “The food has got better, lots of improvements” and “The food is a lot better than what it was. You get a couple of choices, more healthy food.”

The service worked in partnership with relevant agencies to ensure guidance and support was provided in specific areas of care and support. We were told the speech and language therapists had been contacted to review the needs of one person who used a thickening agent in their drinks.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals in supporting people to meet their individual needs. People were registered with a local GP and were supported by mental health professionals and probation, where appropriate.

Each person had a hospital passport, which would be used to better co-ordinate people’s care and support following admission or discharge from hospital, so continuity in care could be provided.

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.

Not everyone was in receipt of a regulated activity. Those people we spoke with said they arranged and attended any appointments independently; however, staff would provide support if necessary.

We saw people were able to come and go freely throughout the day. Whilst routines were flexible, the provider recognised some people required support and encouragement to follow areas of interest both in and away from the home. We saw discussions had been held in the residents’ meetings about opportunities people would like to explore, promoting and supporting their well-being. People we spoke with said trips were being arranged based on their individual preferences, such as visiting an adventure park and museums.

People were encouraged and supported to eat a balanced diet. One person enjoyed cooking and would occasionally make meals for everyone. People were able to make their own drinks and snacks.

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

The provider was actively involved in the day to day running of the service and had a good working relationship with the manager and staff. Staff and people spoken with recognised improvements were being within the service.

There were opportunities provided so people and staff could share their views or ideas, helping to inform where improvements could be made. The provider was also developing the monthly newsletter, which would include any ideas or contributions made by people.

People’s rights and what they can expect whilst living at Brookfield are detailed in Statement of Purpose and Service User Guide.

None of the people living at Brookfield were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisation and were able to come and go freely from the home. People were encouraged to make decisions for themselves. However, this was not always reflected in their care plans. Where necessary, people would be supported by a legal representative or advocate, should they need help when making specific decisions. One staff member said, “We offer advice and encouragement, but we let them make their own decisions. Give them lots of information.”

Staff spoken with were clearly aware of the individual needs of people. Policies and procedures were available in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the DoLS. However, a review of records showed training in consent and MCA had yet to be completed.