Brook Court

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 16 June 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 27 April 2026 to 19 May 2026. Brook Court is a care home which provides residential and nursing care for up to 67 people. The service supports older people and people living with dementia. It is also registered to support those with a learning disability and autism.

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. The provider followed effective infection prevention and control practices to keep people safe.

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 individual 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 were treated as individuals and staff responded to them in a timely way. People were supported to remain independent and had choice.

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 positive overall. People who may be disadvantaged when accessing health and social care services were supported to receive equitable treatment. People had information presented to them in a way they could understand and they, and those close to them, were supported in making future plans.

The provider promoted a culture focused on compassionate, person centred care, which was echoed in staff discussions. Governance systems were in place, including audits of care plans, medication and the physical environment, with actions tracked and completed through a continuous action plan.

People were supported by a compassionate, capable and inclusive management team. The provider demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement, with plans to enhance people’s experiences, such as involving people in community focused micro enterprise activity. The manager actively maintained their own professional development through training and continuous learning.