Britannia Care

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us care staff as well as cooks and domestics were caring, kind, attentive and presented themselves positively. People said they felt listened to and this was observed at the service. We saw staff communicated well with people and explained what they were doing in a conversational, friendly way. Staff called people by their preferred names, meeting preferences described in their care plans, –and we observed people calling the staff by their first names. Staff communicated effectively with each other to request support with people in a calm, sensitive manner, to promote people's dignity and privacy. We observed the team at the home interacted seamlessly with people living at the service, something commented on positively by relatives as well as local partner organisations.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service was designed to be delivered by and for the diverse local population in Bradford. Cultural and religious needs were understood and met. Care and support plans were tailored to individuals but used a consistent format. This meant that staff were able to respect people’s protected characteristics and cultural background. We observed staff asking people questions and involving them in making choices in relation to their care. Consent was not assumed it was checked before any action was taken, for example prior to moving and handling.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Social spaces were used very well at the service. People were encouraged to make decisions about where they would like to spend their day and what they would like to spend their time doing. We observed one room with south Asian entertainment available, another showing films in English and a third with games involving moderate physical activity and a quiz. At the same time, some people were enjoying the outside space.

We observed people using several spaces over the course of a day; with staff available to support with mobilising if needed. Not many people opted to remain in their rooms, but these were fully accessible, with working call buttons if people needed assistance. People were able to choose where they wished to eat their meals, with support provided for whichever option they chose. Mealtimes were not fixed but most people had a preference to eat together at the same time.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed people interacting with staff and we monitored activity using a tool called Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). We saw staff anticipated needs but always communicated to people what they were going to do and sought verbal consent, for example before sitting with a person to help them to eat lunch. All people were interacted with during the observation period and were shown respect and courtesy. Conversations flowed naturally and staff used gentle humour to build rapport with people. Staff were busy but never appeared overwhelmed or task focused. This was supported by people telling us they felt staff responded to their requests in good time and with courtesy.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were respected and supported by leaders. The provider recognised contented staff were vital to service delivery and supported them accordingly. Staff told us during periods where they faced personal challenges the registered manager was supportive and accommodated changes to shifts sometimes at short notice. The staff team had a quiet room with a view overlooking Bradford to support their wellbeing. This was used for a variety of purposes including breaks, training and development. A “you said we did” board for the staff team was on display outside the registered manager’s office, in addition to a separate one on the activities board for people living at the service. There was clear evidence from staff files and meeting notes the management team were open to ideas for improvement from the wider team, and if staff needed them, put plans in place to support individual circumstances or development needs.