Britannia Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care and support plans were made with the involvement of people and where appropriate next of kin or advocacy services. Reviews were also conducted with people’s involvement wherever possible, if not this was noted by staff, for example if a person lacked capacity a relative or advocate would be involved. However, some people told us they could not remember being involved in care planning or reviews, but they did say they were asked about various preferences and were positive about life in the service.

People’s communication needs were recorded and displayed in electronic care records to enable staff to deliver care as specified.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People's nutritional needs and preferences were well documented and regularly reviewed. Any changes were communicated effectively to the kitchen team, who had access to clear information about people's dietary requirements and preferences, helping to ensure these were consistently met. However, we did identify nutritional intake, particularly fluids were not consistently recorded where required for people. The provider took immediate steps to rectify this.

The provider worked across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider successfully supported people and families to access partner services including social care teams, GP surgeries and hospitals. This was necessary as many people’s first language was not English, so staff including the manager and deputy were able to ensure people’s communication needs were met. The service was designed with the needs of a diverse local population in mind, and this was delivered successfully from the start of a person’s journey.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People at the service were supported to be as independent as possible. This was achieved by using mobility equipment which was fit for purpose and supported by partners from occupational therapy teams and the NHS. People had bespoke equipment to support various tasks, which was well maintained and personalised. People were encouraged to participate in activities on the ground floor, using 3 social spaces separate to the large dining area. The dining area was used by some people to play games, do craft activities or puzzles. There waseasy access to outside areas which appeared safe and secure. Those who were able to go out independently benefited from shops in close proximity as well as a small park adjacent to the home which had been donated by the provider to the local authority, and which was fully accessible for those requiring mobility support.

Crockery and cutlery had been selected to support people’s needs for example to provide contrast for those with poor eyesight. Each meal was made to a specification listed in the kitchen, so people with specific dietary needs as well as preferences were respected.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care and support plans were personalised; particularly strong in terms of communication preferences and cultural aspects but could have been improved in some cases in terms of the level of detail of clinical information. We observed staff encouraging a person to be more mobile, and this was recorded in a general profile as a preference but not linked to health outcomes in the care plan.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Some people were able to talk about how they were involved in making decisions about their care and daily life. Care plans described where people or if appropriate, next of kin or advocates had provided consent to care. This was recorded consistently so it was clearly understood when people, relatives or advocates had been involved and where they had not. Where best interest decisions had been made under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, this was recorded in care plans.