Brooke House

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 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.

People’s care and support was person-centred. Care was coordinated to maximise independence and planned to incorporate people’s choices and preferences. For example, 1 person was supported with personal care in a sensitive way which promoted their independence and supported the person to develop their skills.

The provider had a schedule of activities which people could choose to take part in. A relative told us, “They sit with them, play games with them and support them with cooking. Whatever they need, if they just want to talk, they listen.”

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.

People’s choice was evidenced throughout the inspection. People and their relatives told us, and documents demonstrated, people had access to appropriate healthcare when required and that staff fully engaged with the process.

Staff had completed training and understood the Equalities Act. The registered manager told us how they collaborated with healthcare professionals to ensure care was joined up. They gave us an example of how they had supported a person in a way which helped remove some of the barriers to care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had access to, where required, easy read policies. Where required people had access to communications aids such as pictures, and easy read documents.

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.

Staff knew people well supported with translating for 1 person to ensure they were able to express their needs and wishes. People told us if they had a complaint, they would raise it with the registered manager and felt sure it would be dealt with quickly and appropriately. A relative told us, “We receive a questionnaire every year.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. Each person had up-to-date summaries of their care needs in place. This could be shared with other professionals and helped to reduce potential barriers to care within the health and social care system.

Staff and leaders 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 treated people as individuals and adjusted care and support to meet individuals’ needs and preferences. Each person had an equality and human rights support plan in place. The registered manager and staff gave us examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service. One relative told us, “[Person’s name] has been a lot happier since the registered manager has been at the service.”

People were given the opportunity 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. One person did not want to discuss end of life and therefore did not have an end-of-life plan in place. Their relative confirmed it would be very upsetting for their relative to have this discussion and staff respected their wishes.