Brownlands Nursing Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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.

Care records reviewed showed people’s likes and preferences were recorded and acted upon. People were at the centre of their care and support.

People and relatives told us they were involved in care plans and reviews. One relative said, "Yes I feel included in all decisions regarding their care”. Staff knew people well and worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure any changes in a person’s needs were responded to appropriately.

The provider understood the different health and care needs of people and the local community. Care was well organised, flexible, and supported people’s choices and continuity.

People spoke positively about their care and the staff. One person said, “Staff are very good and I recognise most of them.” Staff had built good relationships with people. This helped them understand individual needs and provide care that matched people’s preferences.

Staff also worked closely with healthcare professionals to make sure care was well coordinated. The registered manager and staff understood people’s health needs and knew when to involve other services if needs changed.

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

Records showed information was tailored to individuals. Large print was available when needed. People’s communication needs were assessed and clearly recorded, and staff had guidance to support them. Information was shared in a way people could understand, helping them make choices.

Menus included photos of meals to help people choose what they wanted to eat. Activity information was displayed in shared areas. Clear signs around the home helped people, including those living with dementia, to move around safely and more independently.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns, or make complaints. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and explained any changes made.

There was a clear complaints process in place. People and relatives could share their views through meetings and feedback forms. This helped the service listen to people and make improvements. Records showed that people knew how to raise concerns. Complaints were looked into and responded to properly. People and their relatives felt confident that concerns would be taken seriously.

People were involved in decisions about their care and support. They were encouraged to give feedback, including compliments and complaints. One person said, “They ask if I want to do something and let me decide.” A relative said, “There are plenty of things to do here.” During the inspection, staff listened to people and responded quickly to their requests, showing that feedback was valued and used to improve care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.People’s needs were checked before they moved into the home, so the right equipment and support were ready from the start.

People said they could choose how they spent their day. They could decide when to get up or go to bed, and staff respected their wishes. Staff were flexible and adjusted support when people wanted changes.The home had equipment and adaptations to support people, such as handrails in corridors, raised toilet seats, grab rails, and bath hoists. There was also a lift, so people could move around the home easily. This helped people stay independent and access all areas without difficulty.

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 had training in equality, diversity, and inclusion. This helped them understand people’s differences and provide fair support.In our conversations with people, staff and the information reviewed we did not find evidence of concerns in relation to people using the service being discriminated against or not having access to the care they required.

Care plans included what mattered to each person, such as family, interests, and cultural or spiritual needs. Staff used this information to provide personalised care. Care outcomes were realistic and regularly checked by the team.

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 included people’s wishes and preferences for end-of-life care. Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to make sure medicines were in place when needed. The registered manager and staff understood how to support people at the end of their lives, and they had received training.

There was a clear focus on supporting people and their families to plan ahead. People were asked about their wishes, and any specific requests were included in their care.The service followed the Gold Standards Framework to provide well planned and person-centred care. Staff understood people’s preferences, and care records showed that plans were reviewed regularly.