The Brocken

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 the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 told us the service was centred on their needs. Individual preferences had been recorded in care plans and were respected by the staff team. There was an emphasis on enabling people to maintain their skills and supporting them to reflect areas of assessed need. This person-centred approach extended to involving people in developing care plans and their review. People were invited to comment on the level of person-centred support they received through care plan reviews and quality assurance documentation.

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 provider understood the individual health, social and support needs of people and the agencies they could be referred to if needed. Staff were familiar with the local area in which people lived. Staff received up to date information and recorded their progress regularly. Systems were effective in ensuring accurate information was available to support people effectively.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. The communication needs of people were assessed to determine their level of understanding or how information could be successfully relayed to them. People told us they had received copies of their care plans, and they had consented to the support provided.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.

Initially the provider stated the service had received no complaints. However, subsequent information indicated this was not the case, and a complaint had been received. This had been resolved with the person making the complaint through investigation and discussion.

A complaints procedure was available and people told us they were aware of who to speak with if they had any concerns. Care plan reviews and quality assurance questionnaires demonstrated how people could comment on and influence their support.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support ,and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People gave us mixed views about the timeliness of support calls. Most people and their relatives told us the service was reliable, and no calls were ever cancelled. Others commented that sometimes their calls were late and they were not always informed in advance of this. The registered manager outlined that short delays did occur dependent on the any changes in the needs of people who had been visited before the call. They said that arrangements to inform people of more significant delays were in place. People were aware of the contact details of the office. Staff had received up-to-date training in Equality and Diversity. As a result, staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could potentially disadvantage different groups of people in accessing the service.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

All people received support that was based on their assessed needs and people were treated equally. Any cultural or religious needs of people were recorded in care plans.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. The provider considered people’s wishes when planning events for the future.

No one was reaching the end of their lives at the time of this assessment. The provider had sought to gain future wishes of people in preparation for them approaching this ,but this had not been shared and remained with people and their families. This was respected by the provider. Where applicable, some people had ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions in place, and these were recorded in care plans for staff reference. People had been consulted about their long-term goals. People had stated that these involved remaining in their own homes with support for as long as possible.