Brentwood Care Centre

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

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.

People generally received care that was kind and respectful, and staff demonstrated positive interactions, offering choice and supporting people’s dignity during day‑to‑day care. Many people told us staff knew them well, and observations showed staff responding compassionately, explaining care and adjusting their approach to meet individual needs. Some care plans included personalised information, and staff were able to describe people’s preferences, communication needs and routines in practice.

However, person‑centred care was not always consistently reflected in care records. Some care plans lacked sufficient personal detail or contained conflicting information, which made it difficult to understand what was important to people or how their wishes informed care delivery. There was limited evidence that people and relatives were routinely involved in reviewing care plans, and feedback from records and conversations showed that not all people were confident their views consistently shaped their care. While leaders acted promptly to address issues raised during the inspection, further work was needed to strengthen systems so that person‑centred care is clearly embedded, consistently documented and informed by people and those important to them.

People’s care was generally well coordinated and responsive, supporting continuity as their needs changed. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s needs in practice and worked collaboratively across teams to ensure care was delivered consistently. We saw timely involvement of health and social care professionals, including GPs, dietitians, Speech and Language Therapy, tissue viability nurses and community services, with guidance followed to support people to receive appropriate care and treatment.

Care plans usually reflected people’s current needs, and staff spoke confidently about how information was shared through handovers and daily communication to maintain continuity. Where changes in people’s health were identified during the inspection, action was taken promptly and care was reviewed to reflect updated guidance.

Some care records would benefit from clearer alignment to ensure information was consistently up to date and easy to follow, particularly where people had complex or changing needs. Leaders were aware of this and described ongoing work to strengthen oversight and documentation, helping to further embed joined‑up care and continuity. Overall, systems supported effective care provision and integration, with minor improvements identified to strengthen consistency across records.

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

Information was shared with staff using a range of communication methods to support safe and consistent care delivery. The provider cascaded information through the Deputy digital platform, where staff received updates and confirmed receipt, alongside staff meetings, flash meetings, supervisions and lessons‑learned sessions. Written information was also displayed through memos and staff notice boards to improve visibility. Staff told us these approaches helped keep them informed about people’s needs and any changes within the service.

Relatives provided mixed feedback about communication, with one saying, “I am always updated; when [person] went to hospital with an infection, they were on the phone to me straight away.” However, another relative told us, it would be nice to have a bit more communication from the home about how [person] is doing and other things happening in the home.” highlighting that communication was not always consistent. The provider recognised this and reinforced communication processes and management oversight to support more timely and consistent information‑sharing, helping to maintain continuity and confidence in care delivery.

People were listened to on a day‑to‑day basis, and staff were generally kind and responsive when people expressed their immediate wishes or concerns. Observations showed staff taking time to reassure people, explain care and respond to requests, and some people and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns with staff. The service had systems in place to receive feedback, including complaints processes and surveys, and leaders could describe learning from concerns raised.

However, listening to and involving people was not always consistently embedded or clearly evidenced. Some people and relatives said they were not routinely asked for feedback about their care, and records did not always demonstrate how people’s views or those of their relatives had informed care planning, reviews or service improvements. While concerns raised were generally acknowledged, it was not always clear how feedback consistently led to change or how outcomes were shared with people.

Leaders recognised these gaps and discussed plans to strengthen engagement, including improving daily walk rounds, feedback opportunities and forums for people and relatives. Further work was needed to ensure systems consistently support listening to people, actively involving them in decisions about their care and clearly demonstrating how their views influence practice.

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

The provider worked to ensure people had equitable access to care and support based on their individual needs and abilities. People with limited mobility or who chose to remain in their rooms were supported to access meals, healthcare services and personal items without disadvantage. For example, one person was supported to shop online independently for items they wanted, helping them maintain choice and control despite living in a residential setting. They said, “I can do most of my shopping online for anything I want.”

People also had access to visiting professionals such as GPs and podiatrists regardless of physical or cognitive needs. These approaches helped reduce barriers and supported fair access to services and support for everyone using the service.

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 worked to ensure people experienced equitable care and achieved positive outcomes, regardless of their needs, backgrounds or abilities. Care was tailored to meet individual circumstances, including for people living with dementia, physical disabilities, complex health conditions and those approaching the end of life. People told us they were treated with kindness and respect, with one person saying, “The staff are very kind and caring and meet all my needs here.” Relatives also spoke positively about equal access to care, with one commenting, “Staff know my mum well and really understand how best to support her.” Care records showed people with higher levels of need received additional support, specialist input and regular monitoring to help reduce risks and improve outcomes, such as effective wound management, nutritional support and falls prevention. While people’s experiences varied depending on individual needs, there was evidence that staff adjusted care appropriately and worked to ensure everyone had fair access to support, involvement and opportunities to achieve the best possible outcomes.

People were supported to plan for the future in ways that reflected their individual needs, preferences and goals. Staff worked with people, relatives and healthcare professionals to anticipate changes in health, independence or living arrangements and adjust care accordingly. Positive outcomes were evident where people were supported to regain independence following illness or hospital admission. For example, one person who required significant support on admission was supported to rebuild confidence and skills and was preparing to move into independent living, telling us they felt “much better in myself” and were looking forward to the future.

Where people had complex or deteriorating needs, staff engaged in advance care planning with people and their families, including discussions about preferred place of care, treatment decisions and end‑of‑life wishes. Care records showed that people approaching the end of life were supported with dignity and comfort, with appropriate involvement from healthcare professionals and families. Relatives told us they were involved in planning discussions and felt reassured that care reflected their loved one’s wishes. These arrangements demonstrated a proactive and person‑centred approach to planning ahead and supporting positive outcomes for people.