Brantwood Hall 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 32 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There was a lack of person-centred care and individualised approach at the service. Care and treatment was not planned or carried out collaboratively with people and some people’s needs were being neglected. People were not always supported with their personal hygiene. One relative told us their loved one was only able to have a bed bath and was unable to have a shower. They also told us, “Sometimes, [person] has food down them when I come in, so I think [person] needs help. I help him when I am here, I am not sure how [person] does when I am not here.” One person appeared dishevelled, with marks on their clothing and some people had dirty fingernails. In addition, 1 person did not have their continence needs appropriately met.

Aspects of the environment was not person-centred and appropriate to meet people’s needs and preferences. Some people’s bedrooms had limited personalisation. It was not always identifiable who was staying in which room as not all had a photograph in place or any about me information in the room. On 1 occasion we asked the manager who a particular person in their bedroom was and they did not know the person’s name.

Some records contained gaps in personal information and inaccuracies meant we could not always be assured they accurately reflected people’s current needs.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The service mainly supported older people with physical health needs and/or living with dementia, yet the needs of those people were not fully understood or met. There were significant shortfalls in provisions for some people, in relation to care and activities. We observed staff practices that did not meet the diverse needs of people. Some people were not given the opportunity to engage with their local community.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People did not have information regarding their care and support available to them. For example, copies of their care plans and risk assessments. Records did not reflect a collaborative approach. There was no evidence of adapted information being provided for those people living with dementia. Furthermore, people did not consistently have their glasses or hearing aids available or in use, creating barriers to communication and information sharing.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives were not involved in care plans and reviews. Feedback included, “I haven’t seen [the care plan] for a while” and “No, I think the Social Worker did one, they haven’t reviewed the care plan.”

Complaints were not always logged and appropriately responded to. One relative told us they had raised a concern in relation to their loved one’s care, stating, “They didn’t do anything about it.” Another relative told us they did not know if the manager had addressed their concerns following a complaint they raised. Neither of these complaints were logged on the complaints log.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Variability in care delivery and responsiveness meant that people’s access to support was not always consistent or based on their individual needs. Staffing levels and deployment impacted people’s access to timely support. Some people did not receive appropriate care to maximise their health and wellbeing.

Systems were in place to ensure people had access to health care professionals when they needed them. However, failures in relation to oversight and monitoring meant we could not be assured advice was always fully implemented to support positive outcomes.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

People were not always supported to experience equality in the care they received. Inequities in people's experiences were evident throughout the assessment. For example, 1 person who was independently mobile spent time in communal areas despite frequently shouting out, due to their condition, which at times caused distress to others. In contrast, another person who exhibited similar behaviours but was unable to mobilise independently was routinely left in their room with limited meaningful interaction. Staff told us this was because their shouting out upset other people. This demonstrated an inequitable approach to care, where 1 person’s needs and rights had not been considered. Therefore, the person was excluded from opportunities which were available to others, placing them at risk of social isolation and neglect. This approach did not reflect person-centred or equitable care. The provider and manager failed to identify and address these shortfalls.

People were not always 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.

Care plans were not always sufficiently detailed or person-centred to reflect people's wishes, future aspirations, or preferences for end-of-life care. Furthermore, the end-of-life care plans for 4 people contained notably similar goals and actions, which were not tailored to their specific needs or preferences.