Brooke House

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 people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People were assessed prior to moving into the service. Care plans and risk assessments were completed with people and those who knew them well and were regularly reviewed.

People had communication care plans in place and documents to take to hospital with them when required. Staff told us they were kept informed of changes made to care plans, so they always had the most up to date information. One relative told us, “I have been involved in assessments, and they listen to my opinions.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Universally recognised tools were used to continually assess people’s needs, such as relating to skin health and nutrition and provided a good standard of assessment.

Staff recorded food and fluid intake to ensure people had sufficient fluids and nutrition. Where additional support was required, the staff made referrals to relevant health care professionals.

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

People had a 1-page profile care plan summary which could be printed out and used when they were accessing hospital services.

People’s goals, dreams, and aspirations were always communicated so a consistent approach was maintained between services. The service was supporting people in line with the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ principles.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

One person and their relative told us, and we observed, people had a nutritionally balanced diet and were supported to see medical professionals when required. Care records detailed what action staff should take if there was a deterioration in people’s health.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff worked collaboratively to plan and deliver people’s care, reduce risks, and achieve best outcomes for them. One relative told us, “Staff know my relative really well and support them to manage their feelings, they look after their wellbeing and do a really good job with them.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and records confirmed this.

Where necessary, mental capacity assessments were completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and where a person was deemed to lack capacity a best interest meeting was held with the person, their relative and relevant others to support positive least restrictive decision making.