Brookfield

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

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 provider had systems in place to assess people’s needs. However, they were not always effective and did not always reflect people’s needs. For example, one person’s condition meant they had been prone to attempt suicide prior to coming to the home. There was no risk assessment in place to mitigate the risk of suicide. The registered manager told us they would review this person’s assessment and take action.

However, we spoke with this person who told us, “Now, I am being treated here. It’s like coming out of a dark hall, a bit more light now. Whilst I’m here I make the most of it. Each morning enjoyed and see what tomorrow will bring.”

An electronic system was used to record care interventions, and managers were alerted to missed tasks. People and relatives confirmed they were involved in the care planning process and care plans were regularly reviewed. One person told us, “There was lots of information from the hospital, and I told them about me, so I think they were well informed. I was part of the process.”

Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of people’s needs and knew people well.

The provider had systems in place to assess people’s needs. However, they were not always effective and did not always reflect people’s needs. For example, one person’s condition meant they had been prone to attempt suicide prior to coming to the home. There was no risk assessment in place to mitigate the risk of suicide. The registered manager told us they would review this person’s assessment and take action.

However, we spoke with this person who told us, “Now, I am being treated here. It’s like coming out of a dark hall, a bit more light now. Whilst I’m here I make the most of it. Each morning enjoyed and see what tomorrow will bring.”

An electronic system was used to record care interventions, and managers were alerted to missed tasks. People and relatives confirmed they were involved in the care planning process and care plans were regularly reviewed. One person told us, “There was lots of information from the hospital, and I told them about me, so I think they were well informed. I was part of the process.”

Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of people’s needs and knew people well.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. People’s assessments and needs were shared with professionals when they moved between services.

Visiting professionals, GPs and therapists provided information and guidance for staff which was recorded in people’s care plans. Staff maintained a record of their visit and outcomes.

People told us they had access to external health and social care resources such as dentists and opticians.

The provider supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We observed staff supporting people to manage their health and well-being. Staff encouraged people to spend time in communal areas engaging with other people, to help support their emotional well-being. The provider employed activity staff to help facilitate and deliver a range of activities for people throughout the week, including weekends.

The provider ensured relevant referrals were made when there may be underlying health issues that needed additional support.

People’s care and treatment was routinely monitored to help ensure needs were met and care could be improved. Outcomes for people were consistent and met their expectations. The provider ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People and relatives were happy with the service provided, and felt staff monitored people’s needs well. One person said, “The staff meet my needs. It’s more than a good quality of life, I am impressed.”

People were supported to have control over day-to-day choices. Staff were patient with people, giving them time to make their own choices. People and families were involved in core decisions about their care.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and policies were in line with the principles of the MCA.

People told us staff always sought their consent before supporting them. Their comments included, “The staff are very good, they always ask if I would like anything done” and “Very respectful with me, they [staff] knock on my door, if its open they say is it alright to come in. What do you need, are you alright, things like that.”