Brantwood Hall Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 25 (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 treat all people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff did not always meet people’s needs and respond to them in a way that showed kindness and care. For example, 1 person asked several times for a pencil in the presence of a staff member. The staff member told the person that the person they were asking could not respond to them as they were asleep. However, the staff member did not offer a pencil despite the person continuing to ask. The inspector intervened and provided the person with a pen.

People’s dignity was not always maintained. 1 person’s catheter bag was on a stand directly in front of their open door. One person was laid on their bed, with no bedding, sheet, duvet or proper pillow in place. Five minutes later the door had been shut yet staff had not put a pillow or blanket in place for them. This demonstrated a lack of kindness, empathy and person-centred care.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Language used did not demonstrate value placed on people as an individual and undermined their identity. For example, 1 staff member referred to a person as a room number and another staff member described a person as “awkward.” In addition, 1 relative told us a staff member referred to their loved one as “naughty.”

People’s strengths, abilities, aspirations and unique backgrounds were not always considered within care records or during care delivery. People were not always provided with an opportunity to engage in an activity that was meaningful to them and met their needs and preferences.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Some people had the opportunity to participate in activities but there were no specific dementia friendly activities in place. There was also a lack of opportunity for some people to have purpose in their day. People were not routinely supported to access the community, fresh air, or outdoor space, to enhance their wellbeing. One person remained sat in a chair in their room, for a minimum of 9 hours. They were unable to mobilise independently. In the room music was played continually from a device that was placed out of the person’s reach. The music included modern pop and rap music, playing without pause and without consultation with the person. There was no meaningful interaction outside of tasks being completed. Staff told us they couldn’t remember when the person had last been outside. Activity records showed no outdoor access or meaningful activity from 1 May 2026 to 6 July 2026. One staff member told us, “Well [person] doesn’t go out, [person] just stays in their room, [person] has given up.”

People who were cared for in bed had minimal staff interaction demonstrating inequality for these people. One person told us, “I just go to sleep so I can have a dream. I am always fed up. I don’t even know what day it is.” People were not supported to have choice and control in their daily lives, which resulted in a loss of independence and poor experiences for people.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People did not always have their needs met in a timely manner or receive appropriate support. For example, 1 person was walking around the second floor in urine-soaked clothing, and their bed was soaked in urine. The person was only attended to when the inspector alerted staff. Some people were not having their wellbeing needs met and were isolated.

Staff did not always demonstrate skill in responding to people’s distress. For example, 1 person was continually shouting out. On both days of the assessment people were observed to be upset by the continual shouting and shouted at the person doing it. However, staff failed to effectively intervene and support any of the people involved on any occasion.

The provider did not always care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff gave mixed feedback regarding the support they received. Insufficient staffing and poor deployment continued to impact quality of service provision. The provider did not ensure staff had allocated time for a handover and staff arrived at work early or stayed late to facilitate this. Staff were not supported to provide person-centred care that consistently met people’s needs.