Burnside Court

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 inspection in 2020, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. However, we did identify shortfalls within this area, which contributed to the breach of the regulation in relation to staffing.

This service scored 64 (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 consistently place people at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Although care observed was tailored to people’s needs, staff faced challenges delivering a fully holistic approach due to time constraints. Staff were often task-focused because of staffing pressures.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to understand the experience of people who could not speak with us. We observed a staff member beginning an activity in the lounge, but they had to leave to respond to a call bell. During their absence, people became disengaged, confused, and left the area. When the staff member returned, people were unaware and uninterested in the activity.

During the SOFI observation, one person was seen removing others’ belongings, including a mobility aid, essential for safe movement. The inspector had to intervene twice to prevent harm due to the lack of staff presence and monitoring.

People gave mixed feedback about activities. Comments included, “I go out with friends, I don’t want to do activities that are on here,” and “They would really like to go outside of the care home for a walk.” Relatives felt activities were available but noted staffing constraints.

We discussed our findings with the registered manager, who told us they had recently changed the routine of medication rounds, which may be affecting afternoon staffing levels. They confirmed they would continue to monitor the situation.

Although no harm was identified, these issues contributed to a breach of regulation relating to staffing.

People’s rooms were personalised with items of their choice, and some care plans were written in a person-centred way.

A staff member told us, “Person-centred care means that I provide care to people in the way that they want it. I know what they like and do not like. I know what is important to them.”

The provider demonstrated an understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, supporting joined-up, flexible care that promoted choice and continuity.

We received mixed feedback about how regularly the management team arranged care reviews and involved family members in the process. Most people and relatives told us staff knew them well and understood their needs.

A professional told us, “The team listened to (Person’s name) worries, and reassured her. (Person’s name) wanted to go out, and the staff team have taken them out several times.”

Relatives told us the service supported people to go out. Comments included, “They took (Person’s name) to the beach and they support us to take them out,” and “They (staff) took all the residents outside to see the carnival go past.”

The provider supplied information in formats tailored to individual needs.

The registered manager told us written information could be adapted using the electronic care planning system. Most people had a choice and communication care plan in place, guiding staff on how best to communicate with them.

Since 2016, all organisations providing publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. This standard ensures people with a disability or sensory loss—and, in some cases, their carers—receive information in a way they could understand, along with the support needed to communicate effectively.

Staff told us how they communicated with people who could not speak verbally. Comments included, “Spend time with them to learn about the service user and learnt what they do and don’t like. I would monitor their non-verbal responses. Record cues are in care plans,” and “We use body language, things like hand gestures, how they look in the face. Do they look comfortable or in pain.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We saw records of relative surveys, but there was no evidence of action taken in response to feedback provided by people using the service.

Relatives gave mixed feedback about whether concerns were acted upon. Comments included, “Management and carers are very approachable when raising concerns and will say the right things in response, but seeing these things put into practice is often an issue,” and “If I raised a concern or question, they always get back to me.”

One person told us, “The carers listen to me. I tell them what I like and dislike, I am happy here.”

A professional told us, “(Person’s name) had reported some worries at times. I have spoken to the registered manager, and all worries and concerns were addressed.”

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The registered manager told us it had been challenging since COVID-19 to arrange regular visits from dentists, opticians, and chiropodists. However, professionals would attend in emergencies, and efforts were being made to arrange routine visits.

Relatives told us people had access to services when needed. Comments included, “They see the chiropodist and the hairdresser,” and “They (staff) have been very proactive in getting in the mental health team and the GP.”

The building and premises were accessible, with signage in place to help people with dementia navigate the home. We suggested the provider review signage to make the corridors to specific rooms easier to understand.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Although activities were available, they were not always meaningful to individuals. Further detail is included in the person-centred care quality statement.

We observed people receiving visitors, and the registered manager confirmed there were no restrictions on loved ones visiting the service.

The management team were aware of barriers to care outcomes and had appropriate policies in place regarding equality and discrimination. Training records showed staff had completed training in dignity and respect, and equality and diversity.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including end-of-life care, in a way that allowed time to make informed decisions about their future.

Although most people had end-of-life care plans, these lacked detail about what was important to them at that stage, such as specific wishes relating to funeral arrangements.

The registered manager told us they aim to support residents and families with discussions around future care.

Training records showed staff had completed training in death, dying, and bereavement.