Barton Brook Care 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and support choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The electronic care planning system included a hand-held device used by staff at the point of delivering care. This was difficult for staff to navigate and finding basic information often required working through multiple layers of information in the system.

To help us better understand and navigate the electronic care records, we sat with a member of the leadership team to review a sample of care records. This person told us the system was ‘overly complicated’ and placed an unnecessary burden on staff. We also spoke with a visiting healthcare professional who told us, “Extracting information/data from this system to monitor progress since my last visit is not at all easy. I often need to find a member of staff to ask about progress, as recording is not up to date.

We discussed these issues with the providers senior leadership team who were already aware of the complexities of the electronic care planning system. We were assured positive action was planned to streamline records in the system to make them more person-centred and user friendly.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. People’s care plans in relation to their clinical needs and health conditions were not always clear, which did not fully support joined-up care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information people needed was not always tailored to meet their individual communication needs. For example, the day’s menu options were not provided in a way that supported people’s ability to choose what they wanted to eat and drink. The home manager told us picture menus were being introduced and if information was required in another format this would be provided.

The provider had not always made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Meaningful engagement and involvement of people formed part of the providers whole-home improvement plan. Further time was needed to ensure systems and processes for listening and involving people was fully embedded and improvements maintained.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

As described in the ‘effective’ section of this report. The home was linked to an NHS GP service dedicated to providing primary care to people in a care home setting. Along with other members of the healthcare team, this helped to ensure peoples routine and urgent healthcare needs were met.

Staff and leaders did not always sufficiently consider information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We were not assured the needs of people from diverse backgrounds were fully considered when planning their care and support. This included people who additional needs based on protected characteristics.

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. People nearing the end of life were supported to remain in the home wherever possible. This meant people could be cared for in familiar surroundings, supported by people they knew well and could trust.