Brookfield Care Home

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment this key question was rated good. At this assessment the rating has changed from good to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. Risks to people’s health and safety were not always safely assessed and there were shortfalls in relation to how medicines were managed. There were enough experienced and trained staff to support people. The home was well maintained, clean and homely. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and the way people’s medicines were managed safely.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At the last assessment this key question was rated good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Staff were kind and caring and promoted people’s rights and independence.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At the last assessment this key question was rated good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. We reviewed 1 quality statement. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At the last assessment this key question was rated good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. Governance arrangements had not always been effective in highlighting shortfalls, which impacted on the quality of people’s care and support. The service had clear vision and values and collaborated well with partners. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance.