Brooklands Homecare Ltd

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Person-centred information about people was not robustly documented, the information sheets did not include detailed preferences and what was important to people and changes to their needs were not documented in detail. People described receiving person-centred care and individualised interactions with staff due to staff knowing them well. A staff member said, “To me they stand out, this is a big town and there are a lot of agencies. I would recommend it to my own mother or my own family. I think Brooklands Homecare are authentic as they are not too big. They do what they say on the tin and that can be hard in terms of client centred.”

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. Managers did not ensure staff always received effective training and guidance in response to the needs of the people they supported. Staff supported a person who lived with Parkinson’s disease, this condition affects people in different ways. Although staff had not received training and had formal knowledge of the condition, staff supported them well. Some people that used the service lived with dementia, staff had received training but there was no care plan in place to inform them of how dementia affected the person individually. However, due to the smaller size of the service people received a continuity of care by constant staff who spent time with them and learned to understand their needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Up to date and accurate information was not always freely available to people and their relatives as information sheets were not current and comprehensive. Information about people’s communication needs were noted in their information sheets but were without detail. For example, some people wore hearing aids but there was little guidance to staff about this including the support they may require to wear aids, frequency of changing batteries and other ways they may communicate. The branch manager told us there was currently no person that required information to be provided in different formats.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People and their relatives knew to contact the branch manager to complain or raise concerns although they did not have a copy of the complaints policy to follow. A person told us, “I am happy, they are all very nice, no complaints. I haven't thought about complaining.” A relative said, “No need to complain at all, I think [branch manager] would take our complaints seriously. If needed I could contact head office but any concerns I would raise verbally with [branch manager]. They would report back to me. The staff are lovely they are not moody.” The branch manager told us they had not received any complaints and the complaints log did not have any entries for many years. However, a relative provided feedback which indicated a complaint may have been raised but resolved to their satisfaction. They said, “(Problems were) resolved extremely quickly. [Branch manager] is always very responsive, who addressed with, come back with a resolution.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us they could contact the service when needed. There were on-call arrangements for outside of office hours and an on-call rota for office staff so people and staff could make contact day or night. We saw examples where the branch manager advocated for people where they would benefit with additional time to ensure their needs were met. A staff member told us, “If I feel there are any changes that are needed to support a customer more I would phone the office.”

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 and managers supported people to receive good outcomes. For example, a person received complaints from their neighbour regarding their television volume. Staff had noticed the person’s hearing had deteriorated and the branch manager spoke with the person’s GP who prescribed ear drops and arranged ear irrigation. The branch manager told us how this increased the person’s well-being and helped also to reduce their confusion.

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. There was no person being supported at the end of life at the time of our inspection. The branch manager told us they had previously supported people and had worked closely with hospice at home nurses to promote a dignified and pain free death.