Archived: Brenan House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

This service scored 36 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The provider did not promote a person-centred environment. Staffing levels had not been calculated using people’s dependency to check there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The registered manager told us the minimum number of staff is 2 and this is the number they had. They had not considered people’s individual support needs. The registered manager did not associate staffing levels with the quality of care and people’s quality of life but with the completion of tasks.

There was no evidence people had been involved in developing their care plans or what they would like to do as part of activities.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. The registered manager had not kept up to date with their training and staff understanding of the training they had received had not been assessed. We could not be assured the registered manager and staff would be providing support following current guidelines.

People benefitted from being supported by a core group of staff, agency staff were used but not frequently. Staff had worked at the service for a long time and knew people well. However, the registered manager did not hold staff meetings or detailed handovers to discuss any changes in people’s care.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider did not give people information in ways they could understand. People had not been given essential information such as a menu, written or pictorial. People did not know what they would be offered to eat until the meal, and they were not given a choice.

The provider told us they had not heard of the Accessible Information standard. They told us there was no need for information to be in any other format apart from written. However, there were people living at the service who may benefit from information being in pictorial form.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The provider told us people had completed a recent survey, however, the survey was completed by staff asking people questions. There was a risk people would not answer honestly. The provider had not analysed the answers to identify any patterns or concerns. The provider had sent surveys to relatives but had only received one reply.

People and their relatives had not been given the opportunity to attend meetings. The registered manager told us they relied on families contacting them if anything was wrong. They had not thought about how people could be involved in decisions such as what meals were on the menu.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People did not always receive the support they needed due to staffing levels. There were not always staff available to support people once their personal care had been completed. People did not always have access to call bells when they were in their bedrooms to call staff.

The registered manager had made sure people received the support they needed to access vaccinations and GP support when needed.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. People’s care plans had not identified when people may experience discrimination and what action should be taken to reduce the risk.

The provider did not have a comprehensive policy to identify possible discrimination, and staff had not received training on supporting people when they faced discrimination. The provider had not reviewed people’s experience of living at the service and how they felt about living at the service and if it met their expectations. They had not identified people were not receiving person centred care which would enhance their wellbeing.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s care plans included anticipatory care plans and do not resuscitate documents which had been put in place with the support of the GP. However, there was no information about people’s specific requests and wishes.