Briarfield

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 61 (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 treatment choices. Records did not always demonstrate how people had been involved in decisions about their care and support or how they were supported to express their views when their needs changed.
Care records reflected a generally person-centred approach, and staff and the registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual needs and preferences. However, while care plans contained detailed information about people, they did not always clearly capture the person's own voice or evidence how they had contributed to the planning of their care and support.
There was limited evidence to demonstrate people were routinely consulted about how their care was delivered or involved in reviewing and shaping their support. The registered manager told us monthly reviews were completed by key workers and that family members were invited to attend reviews every six months. However, this was not consistently evidenced within people's records. When we asked relatives whether they had seen their family member's care plan, 1 relative told us, "No, not for a long time."
The service was in the process of migrating to an electronic care planning system. During this transition, some staff were unclear about where care documentation was stored and how to access it. This created a risk that important information may not always have been readily available to support consistent, person-centred care.
 

The provider understood people's diverse health and care needs and worked with other services to help ensure care was joined up, flexible and supported continuity. Staff had a good understanding of people's complex and changing needs, and appropriate funding arrangements were in place to support them. Staff had also received training to help them meet people's specific healthcare requirements safely and confidently.
Relatives spoke positively about how staff responded to changes in people's health. One relative told us, "If they think something is not right, they monitor and if it's not improving, they are straight onto the doctor who comes out or the district nurse, they don't leave it for a few days, they are good at picking up on things and get someone to make sure."
Health professionals also described a collaborative and proactive approach. One professional told us, "The provider has been responsive in working alongside the [health professional] team to escalate concerns and request support when needed."
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and accessible information tailored to people's individual needs. Information was available in a range of formats to support people to understand and make decisions about their care and support. Easy-read documents were available for key areas, including complaints and safeguarding.

The service also worked with the learning disability team to support communication and provide accessible health information.
 

The provider maintained a complaints and compliments system and responded to complaints in line with their policy. They had processes in place for people to share feedback, raise concerns and make complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, the provider could not always demonstrate how people and those important to them were involved in decisions about their care or informed of changes made as a result of their feedback.
People and relatives told us they would feel comfortable raising concerns with staff or the registered manager and were confident they would be listened to. However, people and relatives were not always involved in care reviews, and records did not consistently demonstrate how people's views had influenced decisions about their care and support.
People were supported to access advocacy services where required. For example, one person told us they did not like living at the service and wished to move. The registered manager explained the person's views about where they wanted to live could fluctuate and demonstrated the person had been supported to access an independent advocate and referred to a clinical psychologist to help explore factors influencing their wishes.
The registered manager had also supported the person to visit other services to help them understand and explore alternative options, enabling them to make informed choices about their future support arrangements. One professional told us, “Working with Briarfield was a very positive experience.” They also told us, “I go to many care homes and Briarfield’s level of care, and one-to-one support stands alone from other places.”
 

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

Staff supported people to access healthcare appointments and services relevant to their needs. They also supported people to access their local community and maintain links with services that were important to them. Staff advocated on people's behalf during appointments to help ensure they received appropriate care, treatment and support and that their views were understood and considered.
 

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to and act on information about what was important to people. As a result, people were not always supported to achieve outcomes and experiences that reflected their individual goals, interests and aspirations.
People were not consistently supported to discuss and review the goals and outcomes they wanted to achieve. There was limited information in care plans about people's aspirations or how staff would support them to work towards these. This meant the provider could not always demonstrate how care and support were tailored to improve people's experiences and outcomes.
People had access to a range of activities, including attending a local day centre, swimming and annual holidays. It was not always clear whether people were being encouraged to explore new opportunities, develop skills or participate in activities that reflected their individual interests and preferences.
However, people were supported to access some meaningful activities and experiences in the community, helping them maintain social connections and take part in activities they enjoyed.
 

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.
There was limited evidence of future planning within people's care records. Care plans did not consistently include information about people's long-term goals, aspirations or preferences for the future as their needs changed. There was also little evidence of discussions with people, their families or those important to them about future living arrangements or other significant life events. This meant opportunities to support people to prepare for and influence decisions about their future may have been missed.
Some people had end of life care plans in place. However, these were not always fully completed or reviewed regularly to ensure they reflected people's current wishes and preferences. The registered manager spoke passionately about supporting people effectively at the end of their lives and promoting care that reflected their wishes and preferences.