Brendoncare St Giles View

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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

Staff understood the process for creating and reviewing care plans. People’s care plans were comprehensive and addressed their physical, health, emotional, wellbeing and communication needs. The provider had a ‘Resident of the Day’ process to ensure each person’s care plan was reviewed monthly in addition to any updates made following incidents.

People and relatives told us they were involved both in their initial care plan and 6 monthly reviews of their care. People felt staff understood their needs. A relative said, “Every 6 months we have a 1 to 1 and we do a review and make any suggestions. They [staff] understand her better than I do, they read her very well.”

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.

Staff used a range of nationally recognised clinical tools to assess and monitor people’s needs and risks. People’s care reflected national guidance, for example, in relation to how often people were re-positioned where required. Staff had access to relevant policies which reflected national legislation and good practice guidance.

People’s nutritional assessment documented any support they required, in relation to their meals needed to be modified, their dietary preferences and any religious requirements. The provider had processes to ensure people were sent a meal from the kitchen of the correct consistency for their needs. At lunchtime on the first day, we saw care staff checked again to ensure people were served the correct meal. Staff correctly identified a person who was about to be served a meal which was not of the correct consistency and ensured this was changed. This showed the provider had implemented various processes to ensure the safety of people who required a modified meal.

We observed on the first day there was food waste at lunchtime, and we received some mixed feedback about the meals. Whilst most people were happy and said, “The food is very nice,” some only felt it was ‘OK.’ However, if people did not want either of the main course choices, we saw they were offered a range of alternatives. People were encouraged to provide their feedback about the meals, both directly and through the home’s regular food forums, which enabled people to meet with the chef and the hospitality manager. The chef’s meal planning was based on people’s meal choices.

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.

Staff worked with a wide range of external services and professionals to ensure any required referrals were identified and made for people. Key information was shared at the daily oversight meetings and then cascaded to staff.Clinical staff met to consider any clinical risks or actions required for people. The provider had processes to ensure information and updates about people’s care was then shared with relevant staff.

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.

Staff supported people to ensure their healthcare needs were identified and met. For example, records showed people's oral healthcare needs had been assessed and they were referred to the dentist. People’s daily notes showed staff supported people who needed assistance cleaning their teeth.

Staff monitored people’s health for signs of deterioration using recognised tools. Staff then referred people to health care professionals as required, such as the GP and speech and language therapist.

People were encouraged to remain physically active through a variety of weekly activities which included exercise, movement, and yoga classes. People could be referred to the home’s physiotherapist for assessment. People’s records showed their mobility needs were assessed and personalised exercise programmes provided if required.

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.

People’s care plans contained identified outcomes and goals for their care which had been agreed with them. These were kept under review through the monthly Resident of the Day process and 6 monthly reviews of people’s care.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People’s views and wishes were considered when their care was planned. People had signed their consent to their care where they were able to.

Staff completed mental capacity act (MCA) assessments were required to assess if people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions. If the person was determined to lack capacity to make the decision, it was then made in their best interests following consultation with relevant parties. Whilst overall MCA assessments were completed correctly, some lacked sufficient detail about how judgements had been reached or contained conflicting information. For example, we reviewed 2 MCA assessments for different decisions for a person, one stated they did not have an impairment of the mind and the other that they did. Although this did not impact the outcome for the person in relation to either decision, there had been a lack of care in recording the details of the assessment. Another person’s MCA assessment lacked sufficient detail about why it was in their best interests to live at the service. We highlighted these concerns to the provider.

Staff told us they had received MCA training which records confirmed. Leaders told us in June 2025 staff had also been provided with ‘bitesize’ training and a quiz on the MCA. Staff had received sufficient training, and their knowledge levels had been assessed.