Archived: Brookwood EMI Home

Updated 26 November 2015

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We carried out this inspection 9 September 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

We spoke with two care staff and the registered manager. We asked four people who used the service and two relatives for their views and experiences of the service and the staff who supported them.

The inspector visited the service to look at records around how people were cared for and how the service was managed.

We looked at the care records for six people and also looked at records that related to how the service was managed.

Before the inspection the registered manager of the service had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, including the information in the PIR and speaking to the local authority.

Updated 26 November 2015

We inspected Brookwood EMI Home on 9 September 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

Brookwood EMI Home provides accommodation and personal care and is registered for up to 28 people. On the day of the inspection 19 people were receiving care services from the provider. The home had a registered manager who had been in post for several years. 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 this inspection we found that people who used this service were not always safe. People’s medication was not always appropriately recorded or given with the frequency determined by the prescription.

Staff knew how to identify if a person may be at risk of harm and the action to take if they had concerns about a person’s safety.

The care staff knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People who used the service, and those who were important to them, were included in planning and agreeing to the care provided.

The decisions people made were respected. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives. People received care from a team of staff who they knew and who knew them.

People were treated with kindness and respect. One person who used the service told us, “I like it here, there is nothing to complain about.”

The registered manager used safe recruitment systems to ensure that new staff were only employed if they were suitable to work in people’s homes. The staff employed by the service were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. They told us they would be confident reporting any concerns to a senior person in the service or to the local authority or the Care Quality Commission.

There were sufficient staff, with appropriate experience, training and skills to meet people’s needs. The service was well managed and took appropriate action if expected standards were not met. This ensured people received a safe service that promoted their rights and independence.

Staff were well supported through a system of induction, training, supervision, appraisal and professional development. There was a positive culture within the service which was demonstrated by the attitudes of staff when we spoke with them and their approach to supporting people to maintain their independence.

The service was well-led. There was a formal quality assurance process in place. This meant that aspects of the service could be formally monitored to ensure good care was provided and planned improvements were implemented in a timely manner. We found that the audits carried out did not always identify discrepancies and areas for improvement in relation to records.

There were good systems in place for care staff or others to raise any concerns with the registered manager.