Barton Brook 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 there were areas of good practice in most of the quality statements we reviewed.

This service scored 67 (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 sought to ensure people’s care and support was effective by assessing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. As described in the safe section of this report, the provider had made improvements to the pre-admission process. In addition to improving the safe transition of care, the new management oversight sought to ensure that peoples individual diverse needs were assessed, and decisions made about whether those needs could be met.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and support that was in line with evidence-based good practice and standards.

The home had 2 units dedicated to caring for people living with dementia and other forms of memory loss. However, the provider could not evidence to us what aspects of best practice guidance they followed to support this group of people. This included best practice guidance for creating a dementia friendly environment that was supportive and therapeutic in nature. We spoke with a member of the leadership team about this, and were told the provider preferred decoration of floors and walls to be ‘simple two tone’ as this was better to keep clean. Records demonstrated that staff had completed dementia training, but most staff we spoke with lacked basic underpinning knowledge to effectively support people living with dementia. The provider had re-established a programme of training that sought to address these gaps in knowledge and how the learning should be applied in practice.

The food and drink offered across the home was not always good. We observed lunch time service on 2 units and saw the food looked visibly unappetising in presentation. During teatime service on one unit, people were simply offered a choice of pie with gravy or sandwiches. We observed one person get up and walk away from the dining table vocalising, “I’m not eating that its bland and awful.” This issue may have been exacerbated due to a shortage of kitchen staff at the time of this assessment. The new leadership team had already identified this was a significant area for improvement, and plans were being developed to make whole-home improvements to the mealtime experience.

The provider worked across teams and services to support people. They sought to ensure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The new leadership had re-established systems and processes to support better communication to assist with oversight of risk. For example, we observed a ‘flash meeting’ which was held in the afternoon and was routinely attended by unit managers/seniors, and heads of department from across the home. Part one of the meeting focused on the whole home, whilst part two focused on the needs of people on each unit.

The provider supported people to manage their health to maximise their independence, choice and control.

Barton Brook was linked to an NHS GP service dedicated to providing primary care to people in a care home setting. As well as access to a GP, people also accessed health care professionals such as an advanced nurse practitioner. A GP conducted a weekly ‘ward round’ where people were reviewed and actions agreed. In the event of an acute concern at other times, staff would complete an online triage form which was sent to the GP service. A nurse told us the triage form worked well and the GP service generally responded in a timely way.

The provider did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, and met the expectations of people themselves.

Similarly to what we have described in the quality statement ‘Delivering evidence-based care and treatment’, the provider did not have systems and process which demonstrated benchmarking against other similar services, quality of life outcomes for people, or any form of service accreditation. On an operational level in the home, there was a distinct lack of ‘champion’ roles for key topic areas such as skin care, continence, falls, medicines, infection control, end of life, dementia, nutrition and hydration or oral health. Training and developing staff who expressed an interest in such role had the potential to greatly enhance quality and safety and provide a solid foundation for improving people’s outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and support. People and/or their lawful representatives said they were consulted and agreed to the care and support they received. Staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood the importance of seeking consent from people when offering support.