Brentwood Care Centre

This assessment focused on whether improvements had been made since the last inspection, when breaches of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance) were identified. At this inspection, the provider had made sufficient progress and was no longer in breach of regulations.

Systems were in place to support people’s safety. Staff understood safeguarding processes and concerns were recognised, reported and shared appropriately with external agencies. The service worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to support people’s needs and manage risks, including during transitions such as hospital admission and discharge. Improvements had been made to infection prevention and control, environmental safety checks were up to date, and leaders demonstrated oversight of incidents, safeguarding concerns and accidents.

Medicines were generally managed through established systems, including electronic records, audits and staff training. Medicines were stored, ordered and reviewed appropriately, and people had access to healthcare professionals to support medicines review. However, practice was not always consistent with guidance, particularly for medicines with specific administration requirements, including those given via PEG and injectable medicines. Leaders responded promptly to concerns identified during the inspection, taking immediate action to review practice, provide additional guidance and support staff learning, with no harm identified.

Care delivery was generally organised and responsive. Staff demonstrated knowledge of people’s needs in practice and worked together to support continuity of care. Multidisciplinary involvement was evident, and people had access to healthcare professionals to support their health and wellbeing. However, care records were not always consistently aligned, including care plans and risk assessments, which limited assurance that person‑centred care and risk management were embedded consistently across documentation. Leaders responded promptly to concerns identified during the inspection and took immediate action where gaps were found.

Listening to and involving people was evident on a day‑to‑day basis, with staff generally responsive to people’s immediate wishes and concerns. Systems were in place to gather feedback, including complaints processes and surveys, and leaders were able to describe learning from issues raised. However, people and relatives were not always routinely involved in care planning, reviews or service development, and records did not consistently demonstrate how feedback influenced care delivery or improvements. Leaders recognised this and identified the need to strengthen engagement and demonstrate how people’s views informed decisions and outcomes.

Leadership arrangements had stabilised, and leaders were visible, approachable and engaged. Staff spoke positively about the support they received and felt able to raise concerns. Governance systems, including audits, meetings and improvement plans, were in place and used to identify risks and areas for development. Learning from incidents, medicines audits, complaints and feedback was evident, although further work was required to strengthen consistency and provide clearer assurance, particularly in medicines management, documentation and involvement of people and relatives.

Overall, the service had made improvements since the previous inspection. Systems and leadership supported safe care delivery and ongoing development, though further work was needed to embed consistent practice, strengthen oversight and ensure people’s voices were clearly reflected in care and service improvement.