The George Brooker Care Society Limited

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care that was person centred and tailored to their individual needs, preferences and choices. Care plans were detailed, personalised and reflected people’s routines, communication needs and what was important to them. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in the development and review of care plans to ensure these remained relevant and up to date.

Staff knew people well and used their understanding to provide care in a way that respected people as individuals. We observed staff adapting their approach in response to people’s preferences and mood and supporting people to make choices about their daily routines, meals, activities, and personal environment.

People and relatives told us care was person‑centred, they were listened to, and their views shaped the care and support provided. A person said, “I am very happy here,” and a relative said, “They really do care for their residents.”

Photographs showed people enjoying activities, and items they created were displayed around the service. Without exception, people praised the activity provision; one person said, “[Activities staff member] is very good… lots of things to do.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.People’s care records included their diverse needs and how they were met.

The provider had effective policies and processes that ensured people received well‑coordinated, integrated care involving relatives, external health professionals and wider support networks.

Staff training records showed staff had received training including equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff were trained in dementia care, enabling them to recognise changing needs and work confidently and compassionately with specialists to deliver consistent, high‑quality support.

A person’s relative told us how the staff were knowledgeable about their family member’s health condition and any effects this may have on people. This had supported the relatives to better understand their family member.

There was a low turnover of staff which helped ensure people received continuity of care from staff who knew them extremely well. This proactive approach meant people experienced seamless care, reduced delays and improved continuity when accessing health and social support.

The provider understood their responsibility to provide accessible information which supports people’s rights and choices.

Person-centred care plans detailed individual communication needs, including language preferences, use of aids such as glasses or hearing aids, and any additional resources required to support effective communication.

Staff understood their responsibilities under data protection legislation and only shared personal information on a need‑to‑know basis. Relatives told us communication with them was consistently good and that staff kept them well informed about changes to care or health needs. Observations during inspection confirmed staff took time to explain actions, check understanding, and provide reassurance.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had systems in place to enable people, those important to them, visitors, and professionals to share feedback about the home. This included formal processes such as a complaint’s procedure, face-to-face meetings, and surveys. People and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback at any time. There were policy and procedure in place that set out the steps if people or relatives needed to make a complaint, and information on how to complain was contained within a service user guide.

Relatives we spoke with told us they knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint and felt confident to do so. They told us they would talk with staff or the manager if they had any complaints. They were aware of relative meetings they could attend. One relative told us, “I would know how to complain but never had to."

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People’s individual backgrounds, needs and characteristics were well understood and recorded. Staff adapted their approach depending on cultural, physical or emotional needs and ensured people had fair access to activities, healthcare and community engagement.

People had access to a wide range of activities and communal spaces. We saw people in lounges, the dining room and sensory room, with staff facilitating engagement.

The environment supported accessibility. Corridors were clear of obstruction, floors were dementia‑friendly, and bedroom doors were personalised to help orientation. We saw People who choose to remain in their rooms or use communal areas, and staff supported different preferences.

The provider’s policies supported access to the service and its facilities. Visiting was unrestricted, and relatives spoke positively about feeling welcome. People and relatives confirmed that people were treated equally regardless of their differences.

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.

People experienced equitable care that recognised and responded to their individual needs, circumstances and preferences. The service had systems in place to identify and reduce potential inequalities, including those related to communication, disability and health needs.

Care planning promoted fair access to services, opportunities and support, and staff adapted their approach to ensure people were included, listened to and treated with respect. People had access to health professionals and meaningful activities in line with their wishes, which supported their wellbeing and quality of life. Feedback from people and relatives was positive and reflected that people felt valued, supported and treated fairly.

The provider engaged effectively in safeguarding processes, raising alerts and working collaboratively with safeguarding professionals. Lessons learned from safeguarding incidents were identified and shared with stakeholders to evidence improvements and positive outcomes for people.

People were 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.

The registered manager supported people to consider and plan for their future needs, even when these conversations were initially difficult. Some people and family members were naturally reluctant to discuss future care arrangements, including changing health needs or long‑term planning. Despite this, the registered manager approached the topic sensitively, respectfully and at people’s pace. A relative said, “[Person] care plan is very detailed and includes end of life and DNACPR decisions. It is very much ‘person centred’.” Another relative said, “We agreed the end-of-life path with [person] and the manager. I remember his comment: ‘I don’t want to be messed about with’.”

The registered manager gave an example where culturally important end‑of‑life preferences had been honoured. The team facilitated spiritual support for the person by making sure the relevant spiritual leaders could visit and ensure the person was fully supported to face end of life in line with their wishes. This demonstrated sensitivity to both cultural and spiritual needs when planning for the future.