Broadoak Manor 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 the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 50 (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, or their care and treatment was delivered in a way that met people’s needs and reflected their individual preferences.

Care plans were not person centred or reflective of people’s preferences, including their cultural backgrounds and traditions.

For example, one person’s communication care plan contained no guidance on how staff should support their communication needs, despite the person requiring support in this area.

Care plans were not always in place for people with specific assessed needs, such as Parkinson’s disease or epilepsy. Without this guidance, staff were not always equipped to manage these conditions, which would prevent them from delivering person centred care.

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. There was evidence referrals had been made to, and ongoing communication with other healthcare professionals, however, information was not always followed up, leaving people at risk of their needs being unmet. We were not assured all staff had received appropriate training in some areas relevant to people’s specific care needs.

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

We observed people’s communication needs were not always documented in their care plans, or when documented, were not always supported. For example, we observed one person without their hearing aids in despite there being a sign in their bedroom to ensure the hearing aids were put in. We raised this with a staff member who stated they would find the person’s hearing aids.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Most people and families we spoke with told us they felt able to raise concerns.

There was a complaints policy in place and the provider responded to complaints in a timely manner, completing investigations where appropriate.

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

There was evidence referrals had been made to external professionals when required for example, Speech and Language Therapy (SALT), however, these were not always followed up.

Additionally, people did not always receive their medicines as prescribed as they were not always in stock. There was a risk people’s health conditions and pain relief were not always managed properly.

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

Care was not always personalised or delivered in line with people’s preferences; therefore, we were not assured people were always supported to achieve their individual goals, for example, in relation to culture and activities.

Family members did not raise any concerns around discrimination or inequality within the service.

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.

End of life and advanced care plans were in place for some people. However, there was no evidence end of life wishes had been discussed with all people and their families.