You are here

Archived: Branston Court Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 November 2012
Date of Publication: 8 December 2012
Inspection Report published 8 December 2012 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 13 November 2012, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and talked with stakeholders.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

We asked one person using the service and two visiting relatives about the experience of choosing and moving into the service. They told us they had looked at many different homes before choosing Branston Court Nursing Home. People told us they were able to look around and speak to other people and the registered manager. There was information available about the service and people told us they were happy with this and how the information was presented.

We looked at four care records for people with a range of needs including people with health needs, dementia and complex behaviour. We saw that a needs assessment had been obtained before the person moved into the service and the registered manager told us they would only accept people whose needs they could meet. Assessments and care documentation included information about the person’s preferences, for example, how they liked to be called and their likes and dislikes.

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We saw that people's care records included information about their religious beliefs and their cultural needs. The home was visited by preachers of different denominations. People told us they could attend a service in the home or be supported to attend a local church. Staff said people residing in the home at the time of our inspection, attended a Catholic church and the Salvation Army. People we spoke with told us they were satisfied that the current arrangements met their spiritual needs.

People told us their privacy and dignity were maintained and staff promoted their independence. We saw staff approached people in a dignified manner and we saw staff talked politely and offered choices to people. We saw in the care records that people’s preferred form of address had been recorded. Staff told us, “Some people like to be called by their first name and others prefer Mr or Mrs X. It’s only right we use the name they know.” Where people were not able to communicate verbally we saw people responded by looking at staff and smiling. This showed that staff had taken into account people's wishes and they had been respectful to people.