Archived: Brooklyn House

Updated 25 April 2018

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.

This inspection took place on 20 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the registered manager is sometimes based at the services office. We needed to be sure that they would be available at Brooklyn House.

The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors.

Prior to the inspection, we gathered information from a number of sources. We reviewed the information we held about the service, which included correspondence we had received and notifications submitted to us by the service. A notification should be sent to CQC every time a significant incident has taken place. For example, where a person who uses the service experiences a serious injury. We reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR), which the registered provider completed before the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We contacted Sheffield local authority and Healthwatch (Sheffield) to obtain their views of the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. All of the comments and feedback received were reviewed and used to assist and inform our inspection.

During our inspection, we spoke with two people who were receiving support to obtain their views about the service. We spent time in communal areas speaking with people and observing how staff interacted with each other and the people they were supporting. We telephoned four relatives of people receiving support to obtain their views.

We looked around different areas of the service, which included some communal areas, bathrooms, toilets and with their permission, some people’s rooms.

We spoke with a director, the registered manager, a senior support worker, two support workers and the office manager to obtain their views.

We reviewed a range of records, which included four people’s support plans, three staff support and employment records, training records and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 25 April 2018

Brooklyn House 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 registered provider, Bridge Pole Limited, operates a service providing support to younger adults with a learning disability in the community. Brooklyn House provides respite care [short stay] care to those people who also receive support in the community. Brooklyn House is a two bedroom property in a residential area of the city. The registered provider also operates Norwood. This is a three bed property offering short stays to people who are also supported in the community. People receiving support may stay at Brooklyn House or Norwood. The staff employed work at either location and also support people in the community. Brooklyn House and Norwood share the same policies and procedures, registered manager and staffing.

At the time of this inspection, 19 people used Brooklyn House for short stays, up to two people at any one time.

We were unable to fully communicate directly with some people receiving support. We spoke with their relatives to obtain their views of the support provided.

At our last inspection, we rated the service Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People receiving support and their relatives told us they were confident they or their family member was safe.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Policies and procedures for the safe administration of medicines were in place.

There were robust recruitment procedures in operation to promote people’s safety.

Staff were provided with relevant training, supervision and appraisal so they had the skills they needed to undertake their role.

People receiving support and their relatives felt staff had the right skills to do their job. They said staff were respectful and caring in their approach.

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 support plans contained relevant person centred information to inform staff. The support plans had been reviewed to ensure they were up to date.

People were confident in reporting concerns to the registered manager and felt they would be listened to.

There were quality assurance and audit processes in place to make sure the service was running well.

The service had a full range of policies and procedures available to staff.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.