Brun Lea Care

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 remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People appeared comfortable and relaxed in the presence of staff. Inspectors observed calm and respectful interactions during the inspection. Staff supported people sensitively during mealtimes and took time when assisting people with eating and drinking.

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

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people's preferences, routines and personalities during discussions with inspectors. Staff were able to describe what was important to people and how they preferred to receive support. The activities co-ordinator was aware of people’s abilities and ensured activities offered were supported in a why which supported each person to join in.

However, care was not always planned, delivered and recorded in a way that consistently reflected people as individuals. Care plans contained outdated or conflicting information and lacked personalised guidance in some areas. Daily records, apart from the activity records, were largely task-focused and did not routinely capture people's wellbeing, experiences, choices or how they had spent their day.

This meant the provider could not always demonstrate that care was consistently personalised or that staff were supporting people to achieve outcomes that mattered to them. Opportunities to evidence people's individual experiences, preferences and quality of life were therefore missed.

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.

Staff described supporting people to make decisions about their daily routines, personal care, meals and activities. People and relatives provided examples of being offered choices, and said alternatives were available if they did not wish to have the meal offered. Staff spoke positively about promoting independence and adapting support to individual preferences. People were offered equipment to support their independence. For example, one person was offered a different coloured plate to enable them to see their meal better in line with healthcare advice.

However, records did not consistently demonstrate how people's choices, preferences and desired outcomes were identified, reviewed and used to inform care delivery. Care plans were not always reflective of people's current needs and daily records were largely task-focused, providing limited information about the choices people had made, how independence had been promoted, or whether people had achieved outcomes that were important to them.

As a result, the provider could not always demonstrate that care was consistently planned and delivered in a way which maximised people's independence, choice and control. Opportunities to evidence how people were supported to direct their own care and make decisions about their lives were therefore missed.

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.

Staff described supporting people to make decisions about their daily routines, personal care, meals and activities. People and relatives provided examples of being offered choices, and said alternatives were available if they did not wish to have the meal offered. Staff spoke positively about promoting independence and adapting support to individual preferences. People were offered equipment to support their independence. For example, one person was offered a different coloured plate to enable them to see their meal better in line with healthcare advice.

However, records did not consistently demonstrate how people's choices, preferences and desired outcomes were identified, reviewed and used to inform care delivery. Care plans were not always reflective of people's current needs and daily records were largely task-focused, providing limited information about the choices people had made, how independence had been promoted, or whether people had achieved outcomes that were important to them.

As a result, the provider could not always demonstrate that care was consistently planned and delivered in a way which maximised people's independence, choice and control. Opportunities to evidence how people were supported to direct their own care and make decisions about their lives were therefore missed.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told inspectors staff responded when assistance was required and sought medical advice when they became unwell. Inspectors observed people being offered regular drinks and refreshments throughout the visit.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff spoke positively about management support and said they felt able to raise concerns. Staff described managers as approachable and reported efforts had been made to accommodate personal circumstances and working arrangements where possible.