Brookfield Residential Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff said they were encouraged and were comfortable in reporting any incidents or concerns to the manager or provider and felt they would be responded to appropriately. One staff member told us following a recent incident arrangements were being made to carry out a debrief to discuss a recent incident and how the team could learn from this.

As part of the governance systems the provider was to develop an accident and incident log so information was more accessible, and any themes and patterns could be easily identified and acted upon.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Following a recent concern additional support was being provided by the home treatment team. The staff also worked in partnership with different healthcare partners and could give examples of when they had contacted the crisis team or a person’s consultant.

Hospital passports had been put in place. Hospital passports include people’s personal details as well as relevant information about people’s physical and mental health needs; they provide healthcare staff with important information about what support the person may require.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Following a recent incident the provider shared the concerns with relevant agencies.

We discussed safeguarding with 2 members of staff. The information and examples they provided showed an understanding of their responsibilities and how they should report concerns. They were confident managers would respond appropriately. Safeguarding training had been completed by staff and face to face refresher training was booked.

People living at Brookfield were not subject to any lawful restrictions; coming and going from the home freely. A staff member spoke about the changing needs of one person and recognised the need for a mental capacity assessment, due to potential restrictions on them. Arrangements were being made for this to be completed. Appropriate arrangements were in place, and any decisions made were in the person’s best interest and respected their rights. Training in the Mental Capacity Act had also been arranged for staff to help develop their knowledge and understanding.

The provider recognised risk management plans needed to be improved to help minimise the potential impact on people living at the home. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs in a safe and supportive way, enabling them to do the things that mattered to them.

Care plans were not always robust and did not provide clear guidance on how to manage risks. However, staff were able to explain and give examples of how to mitigate risk and what to do if a person was at risk. They felt confident any concerns would be taken seriously by management and appropriate action would be taken. Following our visit the provider informed us a full review of care plans and risk assessments had been initiated. This process was ongoing to ensure plans were detailed enough to support safe care and manage risks effectively.

One person told us they were “happy at Brookfield”, adding they felt able to discuss any concerns they may have with staff and management.

Staff were mindful of the needs for one person where there had been an increase in risk. Interim support arrangements had been put in place to help minimise further incidents. This incident had identified the need for more training. Following our visit the provider advised us additional training in mental health was being arranged for staff.

The provider identified and controlled potential risks in the home. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The home had systems in place to check the home environment was safe. This included up to date safety certificates for mains gas and electric, small appliances and the fire system. Following our visit the provider advised a visit had been undertaken by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, no concerns were identified. A recommendations was made in relation to the fire risk assessment, this had been actioned by the provider.

People were provided with a good standard of accommodation. The home was clean and tidy and people had personalised their bedrooms. The provider had a ‘schedule of work and renovation’ detailing home improvements to be carried out between 2023 to 2025.

Improvements made included redecoration, replacement windows, maintenance checks and external work on the fascia’s, gutting and roof. One person told us, “[Provider] puts a lot of effort into the home. He’s always fixing things and will sort things out.”

Staffing at Brookfield was stable, with little turnover. Some members of the team had worked at the home for many years. Due to recent changes within the team the provider had identified additional staffing was required. Further recruitment was being made to help provide more flexibility in support.

Staff were knowledgeable and experienced and said they enjoyed working at the home. The team worked well together providing safe care that met people’s individual needs. However, there were gaps in training. The provider told us they were exploring training and development needs of staff and how these could be further enhanced.

Following our visit, we were told all staff had completed the Oliver McGowan training. With further training in safeguarding level 3, medication management, Mental Health and Mental Capacity Act to be completed by the end of May.

The provider also recognised supervisions needed to be more meaningful and a more robust induction provided for new staff. We were told appraisals were scheduled for the coming weeks and a new induction was to be introduced in line with skills for care.

Staff were recruited safely and had the appropriate pre-employment checks in place before employment commenced. Due to the team being small, staff felt communication was good and they were fully informed. Staff said they felt supported and could approach management at any time.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection sharing concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

We observed a clean environment. There was a designated member of staff responsible for cleaning the home throughout the week.

The provider followed best practice in relation to food safety. The home had recently been inspected and had received a food hygiene rating of 5, very good.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff administered medication in private, providing an opportunity for people to speak to staff on an individual basis. Medicines were stored correctly and the system for booking in and administering medication was effective.

Staff had received the necessary training in medicines administration. The staff member responsible for administering medication said she would like further training. Following our visit the provider confirmed arrangements had been made for this to be completed by all staff. Where people had moved to self-medicating, we saw evidence of appropriate guidance and support being provided.