Bowbrook House

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 which was personalised to meet their individual needs, wishes and preferences. Staff knew people well and took time to build meaningful relationships with them so they could ensure care was delivered in the way that suited them.

People and relatives told us they felt listened to and were central to decisions about people’s care. Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s life histories and personal preferences and were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained relevant.

People were supported to participate in a range of meaningful activities which reflected their individual interests, preferences and abilities. Activity plans were person-centred and developed with people to ensure they maintained choice and control over how they spent their time. People and relatives were overwhelmingly positive about the range of activities available to people and the enthusiasm of activity staff in delivering these activities.

Staff adapted their approach to ensure they met people’s changing needs and kept them at the heart of care delivery.

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.

Staff worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals, community services and relatives to ensure people received continuity of care. Information was shared effectively between services.

The provider was knowledgeable about local services and how to access these to ensure people received continuity of care. The provider had positive relationships with local community groups and services to ensure people received high quality care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was shared with people in a way which met their individual communication needs. For example, meal choices were provided both pictorially and verbally to ensure people’s opportunity to make an informed choice themselves was maximised.

Care plans were clear where people needed additional support to understand their options and rights. Staff took time to explain care choices to people, ensuring they checked people’s understanding. People and relatives told us they felt informed and had access to the necessary information they needed to make informed choices regarding people’s care.

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.

People and relatives told us the provider operated an open-door policy where they were welcome to share feedback or concerns at any point. One relative told us, “I've been able to work very easily with staff and the team about any issues we might have.”

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and people knew when their care had changed. One relative told us, “They respect [my relative’s] autonomy about their care plan and let them be involved.”

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

People told us they were treated fairly and were able to access the care they needed.

People were supported by staff who made reasonable adjustments to ensure they had equity in accessing care when they needed it. People were supported to access appointments when needed and community health professionals accessed the home to provide care when people were unable to attend appointments away from the home.

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.

The provider ensured that people they supported did not experience inequality. Care plans were consistent in how they considered people’s needs, but each person was considered on an individual basis where care was planned to ensure they were treated fairly. For example, where people had communication needs, care plans clearly guided staff how to communicate with them to ensure there was no detriment to them and ensuring their views were known.

Where people were supported in bed or chose not to access communal areas, the provider ensured they were still able to engage in activities in their rooms. The registered manager gave examples of where singers and animals had been taken to people’s rooms to ensure they didn’t miss out.

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.

People had ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms in place which detailed their personalised wishes for clinical care in a future emergency. Where people did not wish to be resuscitated, this was clearly indicated on the home screen of people’s electronic care files, so staff were aware of people’s wishes.

People’s end of life wishes were considered within care plans. Where this had not been discussed with people or where they were waiting for family input, this was documented within their care plan.