Brookview Nursing Home

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 as Requires Improvement. At this inspection the rating has improved to 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 plans fully reflected their physical health, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
People were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it was centred around them and their needs. Staff supported people to understand care and treatment options.

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 specific health and social care needs were assessed and recorded in their individual care plans. The provider understood the diverse health and social care needs of the people they supported from the local community, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

The manager and staff worked with other agencies to make sure people’s needs were met, by accessing external health and care support when needed.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s individual communication needs were assessed and recorded in their care plans as a guide for staff to refer to when needed. The provider was able to give people information in a range of different formats or languages if identified as a communication need for a person.

People’s relatives told us they thought communication had improved. For example, a relative told us, “If I have a problem, I speak with the staff or Manager and it is rectified almost immediately, and they follow up to make sure I know what has changed.”

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.

People told us they felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. A person’s relative told us, “We had an issue in the past with my relative’s meals being missed. We reported this three times to the previous manager. It is nothing to do with this new management though, as it hasn’t happened under the new manager. It was resolved by staff having to sign a form to say [my relative’s] meals were delivered to their room, and what food they had been given. It was difficult as [my relative] has dementia and can’t remember if they have eaten or not. But the staff signature method is working, and we can now see what [my relative] has eaten each day.”
Another person’s relative told us they were not happy with some aspects of the care arrangements in place for their relative. The inspector discussed this example with the manager, who explained they were already in discussions with the family, and the Local Authority social worker, about the complaint and were looking into ways of resolving it. This demonstrated a willingness on the part of the manager to try and address concerns as soon as they were raised.
The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people were given information about how to complain. The manager saw learning from complaints and concerns as an opportunity for improvement and regarded this as a positive process.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The provider and their staff were alert to discrimination and inequality which could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment, and support, whether this was from the wider society, within organisational processes and culture, or from individuals.
People had equal access to care, treatment and support because the provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments. People could access the service if they were assessed as having nursing and care needs which could be safely met by the provider.

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.
The provider ensured their staff received training in equality and diversity awareness. This was supported by the provider’s policies and procedure. The manager monitored and evaluated the outcomes for people receiving care.
The manager ensured staff received awareness training in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equalities Act 2010, the Mental Health Act 1983 and Mental Capacity Act 2005. This helped ensure staff understood how to support and enable equity in people’s experiences and outcomes.

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 were supported to make informed choices about their needs and plan their future care where this was relevant to them. The provider had an end-of-life policy and procedures which would guide staff in the event of this being necessary.
People’s decisions, about what mattered to them, were delivered through personalised end of life care plans which were shared with others who may need to be informed. When people wanted to express their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wished.