Broomcroft House Care 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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff worked closely and positively with people, relatives and health professionals to create a thorough assessment of people’s needs. People’s support needs were discussed regularly, including during daily handovers, huddles, team meetings, and GP rounds. As a result, when changes in people’s care occurred, records were updated to reflect these changes, ensuring care could be adapted accordingly. We found care plans were comprehensive, personalised and included detailed information about risks posed to people and how to mitigate them.

The provider 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. The service worked in partnership with GP's and other health and social care professionals to plan and deliver care for people in an effective manner. People’s care files held records of appointments and advice from health care professionals for supporting people with their care. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed and monitored using recognised clinical tools, such as to assess the risk of malnutrition and pressure damage to people’s skin. Staff worked innovatively to ensure people had adequate nutritional intake. The service had a specific staff role called a ‘hostess’; who’s responsibilities were to ensure people had sufficient food and fluids throughout the day.

The provider 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. Records showed the service worked in partnership with other professionals, such as the GP, who visited the service frequently. Communication with professionals was timely and effective, with concerns raised and acted upon promptly. The service worked closely with NHS professionals daily, and feedback we received was positive. One professional told us, “Staff and managers are kind, professional and act on concerns quickly. There are no barriers to communication.”

The provider 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. We observed a variety of activities which promoted people’s physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. This included organised outings, which supported social inclusion, independence and improved quality of life. People also benefitted from the meals provided, which offered a range of balanced and nutritious options. Individuals were given choice and flexibility in what they chose to eat.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People were supported to monitor key aspects of their health. Staff checked for any signs of health deterioration, using recognised tools, such as 'Waterlow' and 'MUST'. We saw examples of how staff had appropriately escalated any concerns across teams and to external health and social care professionals, such as for people at high risk of falls. Managers demonstrated a proactive approach to placing people’s voices at the centre of decision‑making. We saw clear evidence of ‘you said, we did’ initiatives, showing how feedback from people led directly to improvements.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us staff sought their consent prior to delivering care related tasks, we observed staff knocking on doors prior to entering people’s rooms. The management team worked in partnership with people, their families, advocates and representatives in line with The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff completed training in MCA and understood the concept of consent.