Bere Grove Care 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.

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 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 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 and relatives told us staff understood their needs and supported them in a person-centred way. For example, a relative said, “Mum is so happy, staff always have a bit of fun chatting with mum and I can tell they really know her.”

Care plans were person centred and developed around people’s needs. These clearly outlined how people wished to be supported. Staff had obtained comprehensive life history information for each person, enabling them to deliver support that was informed, personalised and unique to the person’s background.

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.

Staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people received consistent joined up care. Appropriate and timely referrals were made to health care professionals. A professional told us, “My dealings with [staff] have always been very professional. Communication has been clear, and they have been helpful in supporting good outcomes for the people I work with.”

People received continuity from staff who described strong teamwork and shared responsibility for ensuring care was completed consistently. A professional was positive about how the team worked together and told us, “Because the teamwork is so good, they are positive and very attentive to resident’s needs.”

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

Communication plans were in place. Staff understood individual communication preferences. For example, a staff member told us, [Person’s name] likes clear and slow instructions or he gets very anxious. He’s thanked me for that.”

Relatives told us staff kept them updated about people’s wellbeing and any changes in their condition which helped them feel reassured.

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, relatives, and staff were encouraged to give feedback about the service. Resident’s meetings, one‑to‑one discussions, surveys and an ambassador provided opportunities for people to express views or raise suggestions. People said staff were approachable and responsive. Relatives and professionals all told us staff listened and acted on feedback. Staff told us the positive culture in the home encouraged people to speak up. They said leaders listened and made changes where appropriate, including adapting menus, reviewing activities, or improving aspects of care planning. This inclusive approach helped people feel respected and able to influence their care.

The management team took complaints seriously, investigated and provided a timely response. Learning was taken from complaints, and they were used to improve the service.

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

Staf were proactive in helping people access healthcare, community resources and activities that aligned with their needs and interests. Staff encouraged people to participate in activities, ensuring nobody was excluded due to their needs or abilities. People told us they could access the areas of the home they wanted to. For example, 1 person who used a walking aid said, “I go out into the garden with my friends here, it’s lovely and easy to get around.”

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 undertook equality and diversity training and used this knowledge to advocate for people, ensuring they experienced fair and non‑discriminatory care. Staff treated people as individuals of equal value and worked in a non‑judgemental, inclusive manner.

People were not always 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 had not always been supported to plan their end-of-life care, this included for people who may be nearing this time. This increased the risk that people may not be cared for in line with their needs and preferences. The registered manager acknowledged this and told us of their plans to support people in this area. Despite this, we saw and heard good feedback from relatives who felt people had been sensitively and compassionately supported at the end of their lives. Staff told us they had received training and could describe what good end of life should look like. They also told us how they worked with professionals external to the service to ensure people had a dignified and pain free death.