Brookdale View

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

We did not look at this key question during this assessment. The score below is based on the previous rating for this key question.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff told us care plan files would benefit from being streamlined. Staff told us that spending time with people helped them understand their needs. Staff knew how to report accidents or incidents which were recorded on the digital system. The registered manager reviewed incidents and shared feedback with the team for further actions and learning. Staff were able to describe the equipment in place to support people’s safety such as use of sensor mats, crash mats and bed rails.

People were involved in an annual review of their care records. Relatives felt risks were well managed. One relative told us, “[Name] is prone to falls and had a fall which required a hospital stay, I was contacted straight away. Since [Name] has come out of hospital a crash mat is placed on the floor which alerts the staff of (their) movements and there is a new mattress.” People felt safe while living at Brookdale View, they told us, “I feel safe here as there are staff around. The staff are aware and experienced. I have no worries. I have all the equipment in place.”

A district nurse told us, “Appropriate referrals are made, information is available, staff know people's needs, guidance is followed, and it is a good home.” We observed safe moving and handling practices while in the home. We observed safe eating and drinking practices while in the home.

Risks were identified, recorded and regularly reviewed. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of needs; weight management, skin integrity, risk of falls and choking risks as well as additional assessments for smoking, eating in bed and epilepsy. Equipment used to keep people safe such as moving and handling equipment or falls monitoring equipment was recorded in the risk assessments.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People felt there was usually enough staff on duty but feedback was mixed. One relative told us, “Myself and [Name] know the regular staff. Sometimes the home is short staffed during the day and and they book agency staff. [Name] prefers familiar staff.” One person told us, “There are times during the day when the staffing levels are low as you can hear the buzzers and if you ring at times, you can wait a while for someone to answer.” Another person told us, “The staff come quickly when I ring the buzzer, they help me transfer and are very vigilant and make sure I am settled before they leave.” They told us staff responded to them quickly if they needed support at night. People told us they felt safe when mobilising around the home. One person said, “I feel totally safe. Everywhere is coded (doors) and you can walk freely around the floor. If you want to go outside, you just need to ask a staff member.”

On the residential floor, feedback about staffing levels was generally satisfactory. The provider was actively recruiting for staff. Staff told us they generally covered any shifts or used bank staff and there was no pressure for them to undertake overtime. All staff said they had received regular training but had not had any specific training in challenging behaviour. The registered manager told us, all senior staff had completed the ‘Oliver McGowan’ training, but she felt staff required further training in learning disabilities and positive behaviour support and she had asked the provider to source this type of training. The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training is the is the Government's preferred and recommended training for health and social care staff. Staff told us they hadn't had many staff meetings or supervisions, but this was because there had not been a permanent manager in place until recently. On the nursing floor, staff felt staffing levels could be an issue on occasion due to staff sickness. Staff said this means their work is task orientated and they don’t have the time to sit and have meaningful conversations with people.

We observed staff were busy but did not appear rushed. Observations in the communal lounge on the nursing floor concluded that people were left alone for 10 minutes or so at a time without any staff intervention. All people were safe in wheelchairs or adapted chairs. Staff did periodically call in to check on people, say hello or bring drinks. Staff did appear to respond to call bells when they rang. No one appeared to wait a long time for staff interaction.

A dedicated housekeeping team worked across the home daily and throughout the day. Housekeeping staff recorded when rooms had been cleaned or when they were deep cleaned. Curtains, carpets and bedding were regularly cleaned. Bathrooms and bathing equipment and commodes were deep cleaned daily. Regular infection control monitoring took place by the provider which was recorded.

The home was clean and tidy. There was access to hand gels in secure holders throughout the home. PPE was visible and in plentiful supply. Staff used PPE when supporting mealtimes and we observed staff donning and doffing their PPE when leaving people’s bedrooms after personal care. Housekeeping staff were on duty throughout the day and the home was free from malodours.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.