Brownlands Nursing Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 15 May 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

This assessment took place between 18 March and 27 March 2026 and included site visits on 18 and 19 March 2026. Brownlands Nursing Home is a care home (with nursing) providing accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adult over 65 yrs. The service can accommodate up to 31 people. At the time of the assessment, 29 people were living at the service.

This was a routine assessment of the service. This assessment reviewed how safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led the service was. During the assessment, we spoke with people using the service, their relatives, staff at different levels, and reviewed care records, policies, audits, and other documentation. We also observed care and used structured observation to understand the experiences of people who could not always communicate verbally.

Overall, the service provided care that was kind, respectful, and focused on people’s individual needs. Staff knew people well and supported them in a way that promoted choice, independence, and dignity. Care was generally well organised, and staff worked together to meet people’s needs.

There was a positive and open culture within the service. Staff felt supported by the management team, who were approachable and responsive. Leaders showed a clear commitment to improving the service and were open to feedback. Systems were in place to support staff through training, supervision, and wellbeing initiatives, helping them to carry out their roles effectively.

Care was planned with people and regularly reviewed. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing. Referrals were made when needed, and there was good communication between teams to ensure continuity of care. The provider also had links with the local community, which supported people to stay engaged and maintain relationships.

Systems were in place to promote safety, including safeguarding processes, risk management, and incident reporting. The environment was clean, well maintained, and supported people’s mobility and independence. Infection prevention and control practices were followed, and staff had access to appropriate equipment and resources.

However, some areas required improvement. Monitoring systems were not always effective, and some issues had not been identified before the inspection. Records such as care plans, fluid charts, bowel charts, and Mental Capacity Act (MCA) documentation were not always accurate or up to date. This meant that care was not always clearly guided or consistently recorded.There were also some concerns with medicines management. Although systems were in place, there were gaps in stock control and storage, including missing or extra medicines and unclear recording of creams. These issues were addressed during the inspection, and action was taken to improve practice.

In some areas, risk management was not fully person-centred, and individual assessments were not always in place to support decision-making. Some environmental risks and equipment checks required closer monitoring to ensure ongoing safety.

The management team responded quickly to concerns raised and showed a willingness to improve. There was a clear focus on learning, development, and strengthening oversight.

In summary, the service provided caring and personalised support in a positive environment. While many areas were working well, improvements were needed to ensure monitoring systems, record keeping, and some aspects of care were consistent and effective.