Branch Court 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 service met people’s needs.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This key question has been rated 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.

The service 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.

We witnessed people being given various choices about their preferences and we saw one person being supported in a kind way around the fact they needed a blood test to be completed. One person also told us, “I am alright here thank you very much. I can walk around on my own because I have my walker and if I need help coming down from my room, they will help me.” Staff spoke about how they tried to deliver person centred care and they were able to confidently talk about what this meant to them. Staff comments included, "It's about their personal care and how they want to be treated as a person.” And "It (person centred care) means everything is about the individual and not generalising it." Staff told us people and their relatives were involved in helping create person centred care plans.

During observations of Branch Court Care Home we witnessed people spending a lot of their time in communal areas. When staff were interacting with people this was always in a kind and calm way.

The service 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 told us they were given choices. One relative told us, “There were three bedrooms to choose from and we couldn’t have been any happier and couldn’t wait for grandma to come here.” Throughout the assessment staff and management made reference to various organisations they made referrals to for support when needed. We found examples where referrals were made to ensure people received the right support and treatment.

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

People could access information and could express their views in numerous ways including at resident meetings, through surveys and by completing complaint forms. Staff spoke about how they promoted people’s privacy, one staff member told us, "We don’t talk about things to people that don’t need to know." The registered manager spoke confidently about how they could make information accessible for people and how they currently used currently flash cards to support a person with communication difficulties.

The service had various policies in place to support people who may need it. People’s private information was protected using passwords on electronic devices. The managers office had a locked door though this was not always closed when the office was vacant.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People could provide feedback. One relative said about the registered manager, “Nothing is too much trouble, we have looked at lots of places and this was by far the best run.” Staff told us they generally felt able to escalate any concerns to management to investigate. People were able to raise concerns or feedback through various channels including meetings, a complaints process and through a complaint box that was situated near the entrance. We reviewed complaints and found they were investigated, actioned and resolved. Some surveys had been completed by people and their responses were mostly positive. However, these had not been analysed at the time of assessment. Following raising the issue with the registered manager analysis was completed. Policies were in place to support people sharing feedback, including a complaints policy.

Although the service generally made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it, we did have concerns regarding equity in access for one individual.

Staff generally felt that people received the care they needed, though a concern was shared with us about a certain resident who may need additional support that they may not always be able to meet. The service was accessible for people in wheelchairs as access through the front door was by a flat floor and the service had lifts and equipment in place to support accessibility in the home. People could access care and support when needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People and their families felt they received the care they needed, one relative said, “I used to be my nans main carer, and I have found it hard to let staff take over, but they have been wonderful. They let me step down gently and not just take over.” Staff told us they had no concerns about the service. We have been able to gather limited feedback from external professionals despite our requests. However, one professional told us they had no concerns with staffing and that staff were very observant. They told us how in their experience, staff constantly observed people and intervened if people looked like they needed physical or emotional support.

Meetings for and with residents and their relatives were taking place, which kept people up to date with any changes and allowed them to discuss any concerns, although these meetings were not as regular as they could have been. People we spoke with said the manager had an open-door policy and was approachable.

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 who we spoke with did not specifically provide any information relating to planning for the future, but they suggested throughout our conversations that the management was approachable. Various thank you cards we reviewed seemed to suggest staff were supportive during difficult times. One card said, "Thank you for everything you did for all of us. Mums last couple of days with you helped her pass away peacefully. You all went above and beyond for all of us." The registered manager told us how they supported families and residents when a person passed away. They told us, "We send condolences, we offer support and help. We give a grace period to empty rooms and try to apply no pressure. We try to attend most funerals and residents are supported to attend funerals if possible." Specific end of life training was not available for staff to complete, however, the registered manager said they would look to offer this. We saw evidence that people had a DNACPR (this is a document that details people’s choice around resuscitation) in place where it was their wish. We found some people had end of life care plans in place, where it was their wish to discuss this.