Brookside

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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 plans generally reflected people’s preferences, routines and what mattered to them. Staff supported people with a range of activities and routines that reflected their interests. We observed people had been supported to personalise their bedrooms.

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. Care records showed that people were supported to access external healthcare professionals when required. People were supported by an overall long standing and stable staff team. A person told us, “I’ve lived here a long time and I would not want to go anywhere else.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s care plans contained information about their communication needs. Staff told us they had regular conversations with people to check on their wellbeing and address worries as they arose.

Overall, the provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Records showed that resident meetings took place and people were supported to express preferences about activities and daily routines. This was also used as an opportunity to Involve people in menu planning. There were systems in place to seek feedback from people and their relatives via annual surveys. We received mixed feedback from relatives as to how informed the service kept them. For example, a relative said, “Yes, they are good at letting us know.’’ However other relatives did not feel they were kept informed in relation to care planning.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to attend appointments and access healthcare services when concerns were identified. Staff worked with services such as GPs, speech and language therapists and district nurses to support people. The service layout enabled people to access communal areas, activities and external outings in line with their abilities and preferences.

Staff 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 demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and worked to ensure their had equitable access to care, activities and community involvement, based on their individual needs and preferences.

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 had end of life care plans were in place where appropriate. These contained information about their preferences and cultural and religious observations they would like observed at the end of their lives. People were supported by a keyworker system which supported them to plan and review current and future goals.