Archived: Brenan House Residential Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. We observed the lunch time meal, staff were very busy, as they were required to support 5 people with their meals. One member of staff responded quite abruptly when a person kept repeating a question. The person did not seem to notice and started to ask another question. We observed another member of staff speaking passionately with the person and answering their questions.

People’s tables were cracked, and they were given their meals in chipped bowls. Staff told us there was no other crockery or equipment available.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. People’s care plans did not always have their choices and preferences recorded, if information was recorded it was limited and in the form of a statement. One person’s care plan stated they had belonged to a particular religion but was no longer practicing. However, there was no information about what their preferences were now and if they still held some of the beliefs, which would impact on their care and support.

People’s care plans were focused on their care needs and did not include information about their background and culture. People were not offered organised activities during the day, an entertainer came fortnightly; people had access to puzzles and games but they had to organise these themselves. During our onsite we observed people either sat in the communal lounge or in their room.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were not always supported to become as independent as possible. Some people had been admitted from hospital for support to become more mobile. However, staff did not have time to spend with people to encourage them to become more mobile.

People’s care plans did contain information about what people could do for themselves such as wash their hands and face. Staff had not recorded if people had continued to complete these activities to maintain their independence.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff were not always available to respond to people quickly. People did not always have access to call bells including when they were in the communal lounge. People spent long periods in the communal lounge without staff being present.

We observed staff reassuring people during their meal when they became anxious. Staff reassured the person they were eating meat free chicken as they had requested.

The provider did not promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. The provider had not considered staff wellbeing when organising work and shift patterns. The provider had covered vacancies expecting staff to complete the additional work. For example, the cook had to complete the work of the kitchen assistant when they were absent.

When a vulnerable member of staff had not come to work, the provider had not acted to check they were safe. They had not contacted the staff members support network when they had not attended for work for over a month. The provider had not been concerned about the staff members wellbeing.