Brookhaven

Updated 22 May 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was undertaken by three adult social care inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type:

Brookhaven is a ‘care home’. 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.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced, which meant they did not know we were coming.

What we did:

Before our inspection we looked at all the information we held about the service. This included any safeguarding investigations, incidents and feedback about the service provided. We looked at any statutory notifications that the provider is required to send to us by law. We also looked at the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also contacted twelve community health and social care professionals to request their feedback about the quality of service provided. We received three responses. We used a planning tool to collate all this evidence and information prior to visiting the service.

We spoke with five people who lived at the home and three family members. We observed how staff interacted with those who used the service and how they protected people from harm. We also spoke with four staff members and the registered manager, who took overall responsibility for the service. We looked at a variety of records, which included the care files for two people who lived at the service and two staff files. We also reviewed records relating to the operation and monitoring of the service. These included, audits, surveys, training records, minutes of meetings, duty rotas and safety checks.

Updated 22 May 2019

About the service:

Brookhaven is an open mental health rehabilitation and recovery service, which provides personal and nursing care for up to 22 adults. The person led model of care is designed to fully support people and enable their own recovery pathway in the next stage of their journey. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people who lived at Brookhaven.

People’s experience of using this service:

Support plans were very detailed person-centred documents. They reflected people's assessed needs extremely well and had been consistently reviewed. Any changes in need had been clearly recorded. People who lived at the home planned their own recovery journey, by using the ‘Recovery Star’ model, which is designed to enable people to take control of their own programme, so that goals are achievable and can be met. A wide range of evidence was available to demonstrate how people had significantly improved whilst using their own personalised ‘Recovery Star’ programme. Daily activities were tailored to suit each person on an individual basis and these were clearly highlighted and monitored by the management team through a digital computerised system.

A resident representative had been appointed, who attended internal and external meetings to actively discussed issues, particularly around mental health awareness. This helped to ensure the voices of those who lived at Brookhaven were heard by a wider audience.

The home had introduced an effective innovative system of the ‘Champion Model’, which was designed, in accordance with the five key questions used by the Care Quality Commission. Each area had a designated lead, supported by an enthusiastic team of staff and people who lived at the home. Each team was selected on the basis of individual strengths. Milestones were set and celebrated when achieved. This helped to ensure the voices of those who lived at the home were heard and people were involved in making decisions and improvements to their home and the service.

Everyone we spoke with provided us with extremely positive comments about the quality of service and the standard of the staff team. People who lived at the home were safe. Systems to act on allegations of abuse were in place. A wide range of risk assessments had been developed and potential risks were being managed well. A system was in place for the reporting and recording of accidents and incidents. Staff were recruited safely. Staff had received training in medication awareness and relevant guidance was available.

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 needs and choices were assessed and their care and support was delivered to achieve effective outcomes. Staff engaged with people well. We saw some lovely interactions between staff and those who lived at the home. We were told and our observations confirmed care workers were kind and caring.

New staff received an in-depth induction programme and a broad range of training had been completed by all staff, who were regularly supervised and observed at work. People told us that staff were competent to do their jobs.

Detailed policies and robust systems were in place for the management of complaints. Audits had taken place and feedback was regularly obtained from those who used the service and their relatives. Regular team meetings had been conducted and staff members felt able to approach the managers with any concerns, should they need to do so. Meetings were also conducted for those who lived at the home and their relatives.

Rating at last inspection: Good (16 September 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection.

Follow up: The service will be re-inspected as per our inspection programme. We will continue to monitor any information we receive about the service. We may bring the next inspection forward if we receive any concerning information.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk