Brackenlea Care Home

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.

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

Staff told us both the registered manager and deputy completed people’s assessments, but recently senior staff had also been trained in their completion. People’s care plans were informed by the person where possible or those familiar with their care needs. Relatives said they participated in people’s assessments and care planning and the last resident/relative survey showed they felt pre-admission assessments were completed thoroughly.

People’s care plans showed their physical, health, wellbeing and communication needs had been fully assessed. Staff told us they reviewed people’s care plans monthly or more often if required. The registered manager monitored staff’s completion of the monthly care plan reviews. A relative confirmed, “Any changes with the care plan, I am asked to come in and read them to confirm I am happy with the changes.”

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.

Staff used recognised tools to enable them to assess and monitor people’s needs and risks. The provider used an external company to supply their policies, which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance.

People’s main meals were ordered frozen from a catering service and heated on-site. The registered manager told us the meals ordered reflected people’s preferences. If people did not like either of the main meal options available, we saw they were offered an alternative. People were satisfied with the food provided. Staff ordered meals which reflected people’s dietary requirements, such as vegetarian meals and texture-modified meals which met IDDSI requirements. Staff ensured people who required assistance with their meal received this support. We saw staff offer people drinks regularly throughout the day and people’s care plans noted their daily fluid targets, to enable staff to ensure they were well hydrated.

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.

Staff ensured people’s assessments of their care needs considered any existing information from professionals. This reduced the number of times people were asked for the same information.

Staff worked with a range of agencies and professionals to provide people’s care. We saw evidence that when people had moved to the home from other parts of the country, staff ensured they liaised with professionals previously involved with the person’s care, to obtain relevant information to inform the delivery of their care. Relatives confirmed they felt staff worked well as a team. The provider had processes in place to ensure information and updates about people’s care was shared across the staff team as required.

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.

Staff identified when people had health care needs and arranged for them to be met. Staff completed training in health conditions such as diabetes, sepsis and stroke and people’s care plans contained guidance for the actions to take if a person presented as being unwell.

People could access the GP during their weekly visit. We saw staff were knowledgeable about people’s health care needs and provided the GP with a clear handover of information. People were also referred to a range of other health care professionals as required to maintain their health. Professional’s guidance was reflected within people’s care plans. For example, people were referred to the speech and language therapist if required and any recommendations, such as if the person required a modified diet were then reflected within their care plan.

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.

People’s care plans clearly detailed their planned outcomes from the provision of their care and how they were to be achieved. Relatives told us staff supported people to have positive outcomes from their care. A relative said staff, “Provide support to [persons] care needs to give [person] the life [person] would want.” The registered manager also spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals as part of their regular audits of aspects of the service. This enabled them to monitor people’s outcomes from their care.

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

People’s views and wishes were considered when their care was planned. Their care plans detailed their ability to make decisions about their care and any support they required to make decisions. Staff completed mental capacity act (MCA) assessments where required to assess if people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions. If staff assessed the person lacked capacity to make a specific decision, it was then made in their best interests following consultation with relevant parties. Relatives confirmed they had been consulted about what was in their loved one’s best interests where they lacked the capacity to decide.

Staff told us they had completed MCA training, and the registered manager assured themselves of staff’s understanding through audits of their knowledge. Whilst overall staff completed MCA assessments correctly, a couple of assessments we reviewed contained conflicting information. For example, A person’s MCA regarding their ability to understand their care needs contained conflicting information about whether or not they lacked capacity to make this decision. We brought this to the registered manager’s attention who took action to address this. There had not been any impact upon the outcome or the person’s rights.