Bromley Place

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 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 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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care records contained assessments of people’s needs and showed people, and external professionals were involved in this process and the regular review of people’s needs. All care plans we reviewed contained up-to-date information about people and their individual needs. A person told us the registered manager had arranged optician appointments for them, and during our visit we observed them to ask the registered manager for a chiropody appointment.

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.

The provider delivered care and support in line with the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, ensuring people received person-centred support, and promoted independence, choice and control. Staff had completed accredited training in Learning Disabilities and Autism, including the Oliver McGowan Training.

Care records and day‑to‑day care were also consistent with evidence‑based good practice guidance. We saw the use of recognised assessment tools were appropriate, such as assessments for communication, risk, health action planning and capacity. These were reflected within care plans and used to guide support in a structured and person‑centred way.

Where people had identified health needs or required specialist input, external professionals were involved to ensure assessments were clinically robust. This included support from social workers, GPs, mental health professionals, and therapists. Their recommendations were incorporated into people’s care plans.

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.

There was clear evidence external health and social care professionals were involved in supporting residents. Records showed recent health interventions such as eye tests, and a person told us they regularly saw a chiropodist for nail care. We also saw examples of professionals contributing to best‑interest decision‑making processes, and supporting people’s health, safety, and wellbeing.

Team meeting minutes and handover notes demonstrated key information about residents was shared effectively among the staff team. This supported consistent care delivery and ensured staff were aware of any changes in people’s needs.

These findings indicated that the service worked collaboratively with internal staff teams and external agencies to support coordinated and person‑centred care for people.

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.

Care records showed people were supported to maintain a healthy life. The registered manager told us how they supported people to maintain good health. This included supporting a person to swap their favourite takeaway food with a healthy alternative and encouraging and supporting people to remain active within the community.

Peoples’ health was regularly monitored. Records showed people had access to a range of health care professionals such as speech and language therapy (SALT), GPs and dentists. During one of our assessment visits, we observed a person request a chiropody appointment, and the registered manager discussed the available options, including arranging a home visit, demonstrating responsive and person‑centred support.

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.

Care plans clearly outlined aims and desired outcomes for each person. These were reviewed regularly to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs. Staff worked with people to support them to achieve these aims. For example, one person’s care plan clearly recorded how their religious needs would be met, with planned outcomes being their ability to attend and celebrate religious occasions. The person told us they attended church when they wished to.

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

Where staff had identified people did not have mental capacity to make specific decisions, there was evidence best‑interest decisions were completed with the involvement of appropriate professionals and those important to the person. Mental capacity assessments were in place and were used to determine whether people had the ability to make decisions for themselves.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations had been submitted where required, and the service was complying with the conditions set out within these authorisations. Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and applied the principles in practice to ensure people’s rights were upheld.

These findings demonstrated the service had effective systems in place to ensure consent was sought appropriately and that decisions were legally authorised and, in people’s best interests, where they lacked capacity.