Brook Lodge 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 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 54 (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 and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans contained inconsistent and sometimes contradictory information, which meant staff could not always rely on them to understand people’s individual preferences, needs and what mattered to them. Records did not always reflect people’s current circumstances or changes in their needs, increasing the risk care was not tailored appropriately. In addition, information was not always effectively shared between staff teams, and handovers were not consistently robust, which impacted continuity of care and the delivery of personalised support.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives in relation to their involvement or access to care plans. A relative told us, “When [family member] had homecare I could see what care they had received. Here you can’t see anything, and I am never sure what they tell me is true.” However, a relative added, “I have been involved in putting the care plan together.”

A relative told us they had only recently seen the care plan and when they did see it was wrong, they raised it with staff, and staff had agreed to send a copy to them.

Staff who knew people well were able to confirm how they supported people to receive care in a person-centred way. A staff member said, “Person usually has porridge for breakfast, but I cannot just assume they will want that every day, so I always have to ask first, today they have chosen bean, egg and toast." However, there was an increased risk people would not receive person-centred care if they were supported by temporary staff or staff who did not know them as well.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People were supported to obtain help from other health and social care professionals and referred to specialist health teams where appropriate. However, relatives told us this was not always shared with them appropriately. Some relatives expressed concerns about the family members not having good access to their GP. The provider was aware of this and was working with other agencies to address this.

Systems for sharing information across teams were not always effective, and staff did not consistently receive up-to-date or accurate information about people’s needs.

We did receive some positive information about care provision. A relative told us their relative had been admitted from hospital and was immobile and quite ill when they were admitted. They said, "The home have been brilliant they have got my relative on their feet and encouraged independence. They are cared for and looked after.”

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

People had communication care plans in place, and information was provided in accessible formats in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), supporting individuals to understand information and express their needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Not all people or relatives were happy with how their concerns and complaints were responded to. A relative said, “I have sent so many emails with no reply that I have given up on the current management team.” Another relative said, “The home contacts us if there are any issues but sometimes it is not as timely as we would like.”

However, a lot of relatives reported a recent relatives meeting meant they were feeling more positive about the changes. A person told us, “I know the manager, if I were to complain she would take notice and get something done, they do a lot of work.” A relative told us they got feedback from the relative’s meeting and found this useful. They said, "When I have approached the current manager things have always been resolved.”

Another relative told us, “I know there are a lot of changes happening and management are working hard to sort things out.” They added, "I think communication between staff and relatives is improving. When I visit, they offer information and give an update. The manager has told me to go straight to them if there are any concerns.”

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Systems to assess, review and respond to people’s diverse needs were not consistently effective, and information was not always accurately shared or updated when needs changed. This meant some people were at risk of receiving care that did not fully reflect their individual circumstances or preferences, potentially leading to inconsistent access to appropriate support.

People and relatives’ views about their experiences did not indicate consistency in this area.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. However, more work was needed to ensure staff understood the importance of involving people in decisions, ensuring their voices were heard, and taking account of any inequalities or barriers, they might experience. Whilst the provider had begun to ensure people had access to activities and events, more work was needed to ensure everyone had equal opportunities for meaningful activities including people who chose to remain in their room.

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.

Care plans did contain some information about people’s future wishes; however, we did not always find evidence this was revisited and included people or their family members.

Other care plans had limited information about people’s future wishes.