Brook Court

“Who the service is for”

“The service supports older people and people living with dementia. It is also registered to support those with a learning disability and autism.”

“Key findings”

“We carried out this assessment on 27 April 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.”

“We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.”

“People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The policies and procedures supported best practice.”

“People were protected from avoidable harm through effective systems for reporting and reviewing incidents and accidents. These were overseen by management, with learning cascaded to staff to reduce future risk. Staff demonstrated awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew how to recognise and report concerns. The provider submitted safeguarding notifications to the local authority in a timely way to keep people safe.”

“People had personalised risk assessments reflecting individual needs, including mobility, nutrition, skin integrity, dementia and behaviours that may challenge. People were involved in these assessments and staff understood how to keep them safe. There were suitable staffing levels to ensure people received support without unnecessary delay, and safe recruitment processes were followed. Medicines were administered as prescribed by trained and competent staff, and the Mental Capacity Act was applied appropriately.”

“Risks to some areas within the service had not been effectively reduced and some hazards were present. We raised this with the management team who addressed our concerns.”

“People’s needs were assessed using recognised tools relating to areas such as nutrition, hydration, weight loss and skin integrity. Care and support plans were person‑centred, reflected people’s clinical needs, and people were involved in their development. The provider monitored outcomes to ensure people received timely input from external professionals, including GPs and district nursing teams.”

“We identified some concerns regarding dignity and respectful care. We spoke to the management team who took measures to address this immediately. Despite these concerns, inspectors also observed positive, caring and engaging interactions, which were reinforced through conversations with people and families.”

“People received care that reflected their individual needs and preferences. Systems were in place to identify and support people’s protected characteristics and promote equality. The provider had an established complaints and compliments process, and people felt able to raise concerns. Public feedback, including online reviews, was overall positive. People who may be disadvantaged when accessing health and social care services were supported to receive equitable treatment.”

“The provider promoted a culture focused on…”