New Bradley Hall

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Although the provider made sure people were at the centre of their care, records did not always reflect people’s person-centred needs.

We found the detail in peoples care records varied across the home. Some peoples care records did not always contain updated person-centred information. For example, information about some people’s medical conditions were not always recorded to ensure staff consistently knew how these were being managed and impacted on a person’s daily life. We found occasions where changes in needs had not been added in peoples care plans in relation to the medication prescribed, or new risks that had been identified. Although records may not have contained this information, discussions with staff demonstrated staff had the knowledge and were able to provide person centred care to people.

Care plans included information about people’s preferences, this included where people preferred staff of a certain gender to provide their personal care. Information about people’s life histories was provided which enabled staff to get to know more about people’s past lives before they moved into the home.

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 and relatives told us they received the care and support they needed from a staff team who knew their needs well. A person said, “It’s mostly the same staff I see, they know [person] very well with their little quirks. Everyone is always very helpful, and I’m kept well informed regarding [person].” The provider and management team ensured people received continuity of care by maintaining a consistent staffing team who worked where possible on the same unit.

Staff and the management team ensured, where needed, timely and appropriate referrals were made to health and social care professions. For example, staff worked with District nurses, falls team, occupational therapists and Advanced Nurse Practitioner to ensure people received the care they needed.

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

People and relatives told us they were provided with information that met their needs. One person said, “There is lots of information displayed on the walls, and if I wanted this in large print, I know staff would sort that for me, but instead I like staff reading things out to me.”

People and relatives had opportunities to discuss their needs and the home, and for information to be shared during the regular meeting that were held or the ‘tea and talk’ meetings. A relative said, “Staff are amazing, communication is excellent.”

The registered manager knew about the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and told us information could be made available in alternative formats should anyone need this.

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.

Systems were in place to enable people, relatives, visitors and professionals to provide feedback about the home. This included formal processes such as a complaints procedure, face to face meetings, and surveys in addition to using the signing in system which also captures feedback.

A person said, “I know who to complain to if I had a problem, I have met the manager and she is lovely.” A relative told us, “[Person] likes it here and I have no complaints.”

Where complaints had been made records demonstrated these had been responded to in accordance with the complaint’s procedure. As part of the auditing process concerns and complaints were reviewed and analysed to ensure lessons could be learnt and improvements made where needed.

We saw many compliments cards had been shared some of which were displayed around the home thanking staff for their love, kindness and ‘amazing care’ provided.

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

The home was purpose built in accordance with best practice which meant it was accessible to all people to enable them to move freely around the home. People’s rooms had natural light and were spacious to allow for equipment to be used when needed. People had access to a buzzer to summon staff support. The corridors were fitted with handrails to aid people’s mobility. There was signage to support people to recognise the purpose of each room. People had a picture, sign or symbol of their choice on their bedroom door to assist people to find their own room and increase their orientation on the unit. People had a fridge in their room so they could store snacks and drinks. One person said to us, “It so nice to have a fridge so I can have a cold drink when I want one without bothering the staff.”

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.

Care plans showed how people’s protected characteristics had been considered and if any reasonable adjustments were needed to support people to access services. For example, 1 person preferred later appointments as they liked to have a lie in the morning. We also observed personalisation was added to some people’s mobility equipment to enable them to clearly see and define what was theirs.

Training records showed staff had completed Equality and Diversity training. This helped staff provide safe, respectful, person-centred care to all residents, regardless of their background, beliefs, age, disability, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.

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’s needs were considered and feedback sought as part of their end-of-life plans and these took account of people’s wishes, any advanced care decisions and what mattered to them at the end of life. Where people where not ready to discuss this subject, this was respected and kept under review. The provider used butterfly symbols on people’s bedroom doors as a gentle reminder to people, and visitors the person in that room was receiving palliative care

A relative told us, “The dedication of the staff has been amazing over the past week we did not expect [person] to be here now, but they are thanks to the care from staff.”

The home remembered people who had passed away, and we observed memorial trees in the reception area along with remembrance cards. A memorial garden had been developed where pebbles with people’s names written on them where placed. Relatives were able to stay over if needed and were provided with an overnight pack which consisted of toiletries to make their stay comfortable. Where people didn’t have close relatives or friends an additional member of staff would be placed on duty to sit with people and the end of their life. The registered manager told us, “No-one should be alone when they pass.”