Brook Lane Rest Home

Updated 24 December 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 23 November 2020 and was announced.

Updated 24 December 2020

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 1 and 2 and 3 October 2018.

Brook Lane Rest Home is a care home without nursing for up to 25 people. On the day of our inspection there were 25 people living at the service. It specialises in care for older people who may be living with dementia.

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

There was a registered manager 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.

At the last inspection on 19 and 24 February 2016, the service was rated Outstanding.

We met and spoke with most of the people living in the service during our visit. However, some people were not able to fully verbalise their views. Due to people’s needs we spent time observing people with the staff supporting them. Others could tell us about the care and support they received. Staff told us and we observed staff using other methods of communication with people who could not verbally express their views, for example by the use of pictures.

People lived in a service whereby the provider’s caring values were embedded into the leadership, culture and staff practice. For example, one of the provider’s values included choice. Recorded into each resident/family meeting held a documented about how people were given choice in nearly every aspect of the service. This included choice over menus/meals, and activities. The service was extremely well led. People lived in a service where the provider’s values and vision were embedded into the service, staff and culture. People, relatives and staff said the providers were approachable.

The provider, registered manager and management team were open and transparent and were very committed to the service and the staff but mostly to the people who lived there. They told us how recruitment was an essential part of maintaining the culture of the service and told us about how some people were involved in the recruitment of new staff. This ensured people had a say over staff who worked in the service.

The provider, registered manager, deputy manager provided excellent leadership to staff; and had considerably improved the life experiences of people who lived at Brook Lane Care Home. The providers and registered manager were passionate and committed to developing a service where people received genuinely person-centred care. People were supported to develop close relationships with each other and with all the staff. The management created a warm and relaxed environment and we observed a strong caring relationship between people and the management team including the provider. People knew about the management team and staff’s family’s and interests which helped maintain these relationships.

People remained safe at Brook Lane. People who could, said they felt safe living there. One person said; “I do feel safe with the staff” and relatives, staff and professionals agreed people were safe.

People received their medicines safely by staff that had received regular updated training. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures. This helped to ensure staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people. People, relatives and the staff team confirmed there were sufficient number of staff to help keep people safe. Staff said they were able to meet people’s needs and support them when needed.

People’s risks were assessed, monitored and managed by staff to help ensure they remained safe. Risk assessments were completed to enable people to retain as much independence as possible.

People continued to receive care from a staff team that had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. Staff had completed safeguarding training. The provider had a comprehensive training programme in place. Staff without formal care qualifications completed the Care Certificate (a nationally recognised training course for staff new to care). The Care Certificate training looked at and discussed the Equality and Diversity and Human Rights policy of the company.

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. People’s wishes for their end of life were clearly documented. People's healthcare needs were monitored by the staff and people had access to a variety of healthcare professionals.

People’s care and support was based on legislation and best practice guidelines, helping to ensure the best outcomes for people. People’s legal rights were upheld and consent to care was sought. Care plans were person centred and held full details on how people’s needs were to be met, taking into account people’s preferences and wishes. Information held included people’s previous history and any cultural, religious and spiritual needs.

People received care from a dedicated staff team who were kind, caring and compassionate, and who demonstrated they would go the extra mile for people when necessary. Staff valued people. The staff had built strong relationships with people. All staff demonstrated kindness for people through their conversations and interactions. Staff respected people’s privacy. People or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support people received.

The service remained responsive to people's individual needs and provided personalised care and support. People’s equality and diversity was respected and people were supported in the way they wanted to be. People who required assistance with their communication needs had these individually assessed and met. People were able to make choices about their day to day lives. The provider had a complaints policy in place and records showed all complaints had been fully investigated and responded to.

People lived in a service which had been designed and adapted to meet their needs. The provider monitored the service to help ensure its ongoing quality and safety. There were quality assurance systems in place to help monitor the quality of the service, and identify any areas which might require improvement. The provider’s governance framework helped monitor the management and leadership of the service. The provider listened to feedback and reflected on how the service could be further improved. The provider had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.