Brackenlea 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 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 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 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.

People had person centred care plans which reflected their current care needs. Staff had undertaken training in the provision of person centred care and we saw people received care which was tailored to them.

People’s relatives said they received regular updates and were informed of any changes to their loved one’s care plan. Relatives said, “They [staff] talked through the care plan with me” and “We have constant phone calls, keeping us updated.” We saw a person had changed bedroom, in response to a change in their care needs.

People’s care plans reflected any care needs they had in relation to their protected characteristics under the Equality Act. People’s care plans noted if they had sensory impairment such as a sight or hearing impairment and any support they required.

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.

The provider has had an overseas staff sponsorship licence since last year which had significantly reduced their use of agency staff. Relatives told us they had noted there was little staff turnover. People received their care from regular staff, which was particularly important for those living with dementia. A health care professional confirmed staff worked well with them to meet people’s care needs.

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

People’s individual needs to have information provided in an accessible way was identified and recorded. The registered manager told us information was available for people in large print where required. We saw there was a handwritten menu board for the week and the registered manager said if required there were pictures staff could use with people to enable them to make meal choices, although no one currently required these.

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.

The provider had a complaints policy which set out their process for the receipt and processing of complaints and the period for any issues raised to be investigated and responded to. The last resident/relatives survey showed people and relatives were aware of the provider’s complaints procedure and felt action would be taken if they raised an issue. Staff understood their role if people raised a complaint directly with them. People and relatives could also raise issues directly with the registered manager or through the resident meetings.

Although no complaints were received this year, we saw relevant action had been taken when the last one was received. The registered manager told us of the actions they had taken in response to other feedback received. For example, relatives had wanted the décor of the home to be refreshed, so there was a program underway to re-decorate.

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

People’s care plans considered their needs and what reasonable adjustments were required to ensure people had equal access. People had any mobility aids they required and there was dementia friendly signage to orientate people. The home and gardens were physically accessible for people.

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.

The provider had policies in place in relation to equality and diversity and staff had completed relevant training, to ensure they understood people’s human rights. They had also completed training specific to the needs of those supported, for example, in relation to dementia, falls and continence care. A relative confirmed, staff had the ‘right skill set for the needs of the residents.’

The registered manager told us red plates had been introduced for people living with dementia. Studies have found their use can increase people’s food intake. They had since found a positive impact on people whose consumption had increased.

People and relatives spoken with did not have any concerns about discrimination or being treated unfairly. A relative confirmed staff, “Went through rights, gave all the information you needed.”

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 and their relatives had been consulted about their wishes in the event of an emergency and their end of life wishes. People’s wishes had been documented in their care plan.

Staff had completed relevant training. A health care professional told us staff provided very good palliative care to people and understood people's wishes well. The registered manager spoke with people and relatives as part of their audit processes, and they were satisfied people received good end-of-life care from staff and that their preferences and wishes were known and respected.