Bricklehampton Hall

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were instances where people’s right to privacy, dignity and compassionate care was compromised.

We found the provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect and person-centred care.

This service scored 30 (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 have an open, proactive and positive culture towards safety. They did not listen to concerns about safety. Where safeguarding concerns had been raised by a person in the service the provider had failed to identify or address the concerns. Lessons were not learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had not been effective in identifying the areas of improvement in the home environment to reduce the risk of people injuring themselves.

Accidents and incidents were documented however information was not clear or accurate with monitoring forms showing differing accounts of incidents to what was recorded in peoples care records. The clarity in the records needed to effectively detail, review and monitor the frequency of falls and incidents in the service was not there. This meant opportunities to learn lessons from incidents and take action were missed.

Whilst the provider carried out an annual satisfaction survey with relatives and people in the service, this had not been effective in identifying some people's concerns about the care and support they received.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s experiences of care was mixed, whilst some people told us care staff were kind and attentive, other people told us they were not treated as individuals. We found people who were in their bedrooms either through choice or their needs were not included in activities taking place in the service. We observed the only contact some people had with staff was when personal care tasks were taking place and there was little interaction with staff at other times

Where people’s health conditions meant they needed timely medicines this was not always considered, and this meant their individual needs were not prioritised in the care they received.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People had their bedrooms personalised and some people told us they were involved and had choices in their care on a day to day basis. Staff understood the principles of providing people with choices and control, however our observations did not support that this was put into practice. Some people’s choices and control were limited as there was little opportunity to engage positively with staff and no drive or encouragement from staff to engage in meaningful activity. This left some people at risk of social isolation.

There was no documented evidence to support people being involved in planning their own care or making decisions relating to their care and support.

The provider did not always listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. People told us they had been encouraged to be incontinent as staff could not or did not want to support them with their personal care requests. Decisions about bathing were made by staff and rotas instead of being initiated by the person themselves. There was no overview of people’s experiences of having staff attend to address their personal care and it was only after inspectors had discussed people’s experiences that the provider became aware there was a potential issue.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they received training, supervision and support relevant to their roles and no issues were raised by staff to how staff were supported by the provider. People told us however that staff did not treat them with kindness all the time. The registered manager was not able to demonstrate when team meetings were held. Staff we spoke with told us meetings were irregular and not always well attended.