Broughton House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 registered manager made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. For example, an assessment of people’s needs was completed before they moved into the home to ensure they could be met. A care plan detailing people’s needs and how they were to be met was developed and kept under review. Staff were informed about people’s current and changing needs through their care plans and daily handover meetings.

The registered manager planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, staff followed recognised guidance to assess and evaluate people’s care needs including malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) to assess people at risk of malnutrition and dehydration and a recognised tool to assess the risk of pressure ulcers. Staff also followed advice and guidance from other health and social care professionals.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were detailed in their care plans and staff were knowledgeable about them. Information was held in the kitchen detailing peoples specific dietary needs. People’s dining experience was positive; they were offered a choice of food and drink and support and encouragement.

The registered manager worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. For example, people received the support they needed from other services. The registered manager and staff attended daily handovers and weekly meetings attended by other health and social care professionals where information about people’s care and treatment was shared. A healthcare professional told us, “Staff know people really well, when people’s needs change or they are unwell I am kept fully informed.”

The registered manager supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For example, menus were made up of a variety of healthy food options. Staff spent time in communal areas engaging with people and supporting their emotional well-being. Staff arranged and facilitated activities for people including exercise sessions and trips to the local park. People were supported to access a range of community health services, including appointments with GP’s and opticians.

The registered manager routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, records used to monitor aspects of people’s care where there was a known risk were completed to show the care given. This included positional change records for some people at risk of skin breakdown and food and fluid records for some people at risk of malnutrition and dehydration.

The registered manager told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. For example, the provider worked in line with principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 to ensure best interest decisions were made for people who lacked capacity. Relevant others such as family members and other professionals were involved in making decisions in the person’s best interests. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were monitored to ensure they were in date and remained relevant.