Burlington Mews 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were person-centred and reflective of people’s support needs, wishes and preferences. Details included emotional support for people and how they would like to be supported in times of distress.However, people did not always receive person-centred care as staff were not always supported to deliver this. Due to staffing levels at times, people were being given their night-time medication early to relieve pressure on night staff. Although these medications were not time specific, it would be best practice to administer the medication at the stated times. A staff member informed us that due to staffing levels, they were unable to support people with meaningful activities who tend to remain in their rooms. This resulted in having a negative effect on their wellbeing.

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

Due to the home being a new service, there was evidence of the provider building relationships with community healthcare professionals. These included GPs, community matron, pharmacists and clinical practitioners, for example. One professional said, “We have been engaging with Burlington Mews regarding specific people at the service. Engagement has been positive. However, we have noticed the service has had difficulty retaining staff.” High turnover of staff has resulted in difficulty to provide continuity of care to people which had a negative impact on being able to provide joined-up and flexible care.

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

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plans. We observed posters throughout the home to guide staff and people on hydration through food, safeguarding, how to make a complaint and how to give feedback. The environment was dementia friendly with signposting throughout the building. People received information in a way they could understand, and alternative options were available if needed such as larger print. Policies were clear and in line with national guidelines.

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

People told us they could approach staff and nominated individual if they had concerns and felt that their concerns would be dealt with. Complaints posters were located around the service for people and relatives to view. Where concerns had been raised, appropriate actions had been taken. The nominated individual held monthly meetings with residents. Any changes requested by people were considered and, where possible, made. However, feedback gathered from people, relatives, staff and professionals all echoed that the service was understaffed which was not being addressed appropriately.

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

People were able to access healthcare, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders made sure people had access to external support and timely referrals had been made for specialist support. People could regularly access local health support when they required it. Feedback from staff and partners confirmed people had free choice and access to any external services they required. Processes were in place to ensure people did not experience any barriers in accessing the care and support they required.

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.

Staff had completed training around Equality, Diversity and Human Rights, which helped to recognise, promote and protect people's protected characteristics. Staff showed a good awareness of what discrimination meant and how to challenge any concerns. Processes were in place to help ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights.

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’s wishes and decisions were recorded in their care plans; this included any end-of-life decisions. A person informed us how they have been supported to be placed on a waiting list for extra-care accommodation, which they felt would better support their independence. They planned to visit the service before deciding whether to move.