Brendoncare St Giles View

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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 told us they were consulted and fully involved in decision making about their care. Feedback included, “I’ve improved immensely. I haven’t needed any adjustments” and “Mum understands what is being said to her, they [staff] speak clearly to her and take time to listen.” People told us their care plan reflected their care needs. People did not have any concerns about discrimination within the service.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity and had access to the provider’s guidance. People’s care plans demonstrated how their protected characteristics had been identified and any required adjustments made. For example, the care plan for a person living with dementia, identified the actions staff were to take to at night to ensure their light sensor triggered if they got up to use the bathroom, to aid their orientation.

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 gave mixed feedback about the consistency of staff. Some people reported staff were allocated to a floor and they saw little change whilst others felt there was some turnover of staff. The relative’s meeting records showed there was a focus on staff recruitment and reducing the use of agency staff within the home. Staff said the use of agency staff had reduced and where they were used there was consistency.

People funding their care were eligible to apply for consideration under the provider’s ‘Care for life’ charitable top up payment in the event their finances diminished over time. This enabled people to have continuity of care and to be supported to remain living at the service.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

A person commented, “It’s getting to the stage that I can’t see things like the menu and activities.” We saw that, although information was displayed for people, it was not always up to date or easily accessible, especially for people living with dementia. For example, the daily menu displayed on the dementia unit was 3 days out of date and was not in a pictorial format. Staffing display boards on all units were not very physically accessible as they were positioned behind and above a sofa on each floor and did not actually show who was on duty at the time. Information was not always provided in a variety of formats. Thís need had already been identified within the provider’s ‘Quality of life’ audit and was due to be addressed as part of the provider’s interim dementia plan.

However, the provider understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard and ensured people’s communication needs were identified, recorded, flagged and reviewed within their care plans and reviewed monthly.

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 knew how to raise a complaint if required and told us when they had needed to raise issues they had been addressed. People's feedback on the service was sought through a variety of ways, which included: reviews of their care, the resident of the day process, relative meetings, the annual survey, food, and activity forums. People who completed the annual survey had the opportunity to discuss issues in more depth if they wished. The outcomes from the survey were shared at both residents and staff meetings.

The providers complaints policy set out their processes and time limits for responding to any complaints received. We saw where complaints had been raised, relevant actions had been taken and any learning identified and shared. The provider reviewed complaints and compliments received on a quarterly basis to identify any trends or themes for people.

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

The building had wide and well-lit corridors which were wheelchair accessible. There were adapted baths, showers, and toilets for people’s use. The ends of the handrails were fitted with raised bumps, which, for their safety, informed people with a visual impairment they had reached the end of the handrail.

The provider had identified an issue with people’s access from the reception entrance which was in the lower car park to the roadside entrance which was in the upper car park. To address this issue and to provide better access a platform stair lift had recently been installed.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes but required actions to address identified inequalities still needed to be completed.

We observed that there was plentiful seating for people at the ends of corridors, some of which had themed displays to look at. However, the displays lacked enough items people living with dementia could pick up, touch and ‘fiddle’ with which were relevant to each person’s particular stage of living with dementia. There were insufficient opportunities for all people to interact in a meaningful way with their environment. For example, a person’s care plan stated they liked the sensation of turning pages and were to be given scrap paper to rip, rather than damaging ‘nice’ books which we saw displayed in several seating areas. The person’s needs may have been better met by also having access to supplies of scrap paper around the unit for them to delve into and shred.

We saw routines and practices were not all tailored to meet the needs of people living with dementia. At lunchtime, tables were not laid for the meal, so there was a lack of visual cues for people that they were sat down to eat. Staff told us everyone including people living with dementia was asked what they wanted to eat the day before. People living with dementia cannot necessarily recall what they chose yesterday and would have benefited from being provided with ‘show’ plates as service started so they could see what the meal options were in ‘real time.’ The hospitality manager was aware of these issues and explained to us why the routine use of show plates had been stopped, although this was under review.

The provider was already aware aspects of people’s support were not currently sufficiently tailored to fully meet the needs of people living with dementia. To address this, they had recently appointed a dementia lead nurse and had developed an interim dementia plan for the service whilst they awaited a planned meeting in October 2025 with the landlord’s dementia specialist to make improvements for people.

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 told us they were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. People’s care plans documented their advanced wishes and preferences.

Provider notifications and reviews of the service showed families felt people were well supported by staff at the end of their lives. Staff ensured people’s wishes were well documented and respected and that they were comfortable.

Staff had an embroidered a dignity blanket which had been handmade by staff. This was used as a meaningful gesture for staff to reflect and honour the life of the person before they left the home.