Brooklands Homecare Ltd

“Records regarding people’s health needs and recommended equipment were not kept up to date and contained limited or out of date information. Risks in relation to specific health needs such as, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and for people living with dementia were not assessed to guide staff about how to safely support people. Reviews and reassessments had not been conducted for a person who had not used the service due to a hospital stay, this meant staff did not always have an up-to-date view of people’s needs.”

“Lessons were not always learnt following safety events. People’s falls risks were not assessed and reassessed following falls. Managers did not have full oversight of people’s needs including details of pressure injuries. Although professionals were appropriately engaged to support people, assessments and reviews had not been conducted by managers to mitigate future occurrences.”

“Managers did not ensure staff were recruited safely; staff were deployed prior to required checks being completed. Staff did not receive training specific to people’s health needs. Staff completed online training but their competency to safely support people had not been assessed, this included to administer medicines.”

“Safeguarding knowledge and practices were not embedded, not all staff knew where they could escalate concerns outside of the service. The provider’s safeguarding policy and whistle-blowing policy were out of date and did not contain the local authority team’s contact details.”

“Staff were not routinely supervised and monitored; staff meetings were held annually. However, staff told us they could speak to managers whenever they needed to and had confidence managers would listen to them. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and said they felt valued.”

“Managers had failed to obtain formal consent from people. However, staff routinely asked permission when supporting people. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They understood the importance of promoting people’s independence by ensuring they were offered choice and control over their lives. People were treated as individuals; they were supported by kind and consistent staff who knew them well. Staff provided person-centred care as they had learnt people’s preferences and routines. However, people’s wishes were not always documented.”

“Staff and managers engaged well with professionals and sought timely intervention if they noticed people needed additional support. Professionals told us staff and managers were responsive and followed their advice. However, their advice had not been updated into people’s care plans/information sheets. The branch manager told us they emailed updates to staff; the updates did not include risk assessments and lacked information.”

“Staff practiced good infection prevention and control measures, they described how they kept people safe by wearing appropriate personal protective equipment.”

“Managers did not routinely seek people’s formal feedback about the service. Although, people and their relatives told us they could contact the…”