Bricklehampton Hall

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 and their relatives praised activities organised by a well-established team of activity co-ordinators. A person’s relative told us, “[Activities co-ordinator] is very good, and they do try and get them involved. They know what they like. It would be very hard to replace them.” Another person’s relative told us, “[Name] - the activities co-ordinator is brilliant. They know games, music, they know all of the residents.”

People had individual care plans which were regularly reviewed, and care was delivered in line with people’s assessed needs. People and their relatives were involved in planning their care. Staff knew people well, including their likes and dislikes, and we observed staff communicating in ways which met people’s needs.

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.

The service worked collaboratively with people, relatives and professionals to ensure care remained coordinated and responsive to people's changing needs. Staff maintained regular communication with families and involved them in reviews, discussions about care and decisions affecting their family member's support. Relatives told us they felt informed and involved and were kept updated about important changes to people's health and wellbeing. A person’s relative told us, “We have a new named nurse, and I'm involved, they phoned us with all the changes in their care plan. The meetings give you background to what is going on. You feel more part of it.”

Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals, including GPs, learning disability teams and other specialist services, to ensure people received the support they needed. Care records showed changes in people's health, wellbeing and support needs were shared appropriately and acted upon, including referrals to healthcare professionals where concerns were identified. Information from healthcare reviews and multidisciplinary discussions was incorporated into care plans and shared with staff to help ensure support remained consistent and reflected current needs.

This collaborative approach helped ensure people experienced continuity of care and received joined-up support which promoted their health, wellbeing and personal outcomes

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

Since 2016 all organisations which provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard (AIS) tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

Records showed the service met the AIS as care plans set out people’s communication needs and how staff should share information. Information could be provided in different formats if needed, to ensure people received and understood the content in a way that suited them.

Staff knew which people needed additional support with communication and were able to tell us how they met people’s communication needs, including for example, recognising facial expressions.

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 were aware of how to make a complaint and felt comfortable raising concerns if something was not right. The provider’s complaints procedure was freely available, and the home maintained a record of any complaints received. All complaints were thoroughly investigated in line with the provider’s policy. This showed people's complaints were taken seriously.

People and relatives told us they would speak to the manager if they were unhappy. They also expressed confidence in the management team to respond to any issues raised. One relative said, “We mentioned their teeth were not clean and they addressed it.”

Resident and relative meetings were organised to give people a platform to share their views on how the service was organised. A relative told us, “Relatives meetings are once a month, we discussed what is going on with the building and how to bring the place back to life.”

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

People were treated fairly. The registered manager explained how they worked with other professionals to ensure people had equal access to care. Care records showed individuals had access to a range of health and social care services tailored to their needs. Records showed people were offered choices which staff respected.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. We observed staff treating people as unique individuals, using their preferred name.

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.

Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s differing needs and adjusted care approaches accordingly. Activities and social opportunities were designed to be inclusive and accessible to people with varying needs. For example, there was a person who started reverting to their original language. Staff accommodated the person’s needs by facilitating video calls with the person’s friend who lived abroad so they could speak using their native language. This prevented the person from the risk of social isolation.

Information about people’s communication needs, cultural preferences, health conditions and any other factors that might increase the risk of inequality was gathered through initial assessments, regular reviews and ongoing conversations with people and their relatives.

Staff meetings, handovers and feedback helped identify individuals who might need additional support. This range of information enabled staff to tailor care to each person’s circumstances.

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.

Care plans identified people's preferences at the end of their life and the service co-ordinated palliative care in the care home where this was the person's wish. Care plans contained information and guidance in respect of peoples' religious and resuscitation wishes. People had ReSPECT forms. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes are followed. People also had a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decision, also known as a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order, which were accessible to all staff and health professionals should a situation arise.

The service used Gold Standard Framework (GSF) to assess people’s end of life care needs. GSF helps to improve the proactive identification of people nearing the end of life, optimises personal care planning, and enhances coordination among staff.