The Berrys Carehome

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always considered and met.

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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The care plans and risk assessments did not reflect people’s up to date physical, mental, emotional and social needs or risks to their safety. This had an impact on their choice, independence and wishes about their future needs. The provider did not always make sure there were enough staff available to provide person centred care to people.

The provider told us people were appropriately involved in planning or recording their care. The way in which the care plans and daily notes were written made it difficult to see evidence of this. In some care plans there was limited information about people’s likes, dislikes and wishes such as food preference and personal care. This risked people agreeing to care and support without their involvement and consent. Staff members handwriting style made it difficult to read the care plans and daily notes and these were inaccessible to people.

The care manager and staff communicated very well with people and treated them as individuals with value and kindness. There was positive staff interaction with people which was encouraging and respectful.People regarded contact with their relatives as very important to their well being. The staff supported people with this contact where needed. The provider kept in touch with people’s family members about their outcomes and any concerns. A family member told us, “I don’t think I have had a copy of [name of relative] care plan but the staff do keep me informed of anything.”

The provider and staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people they supported. They had not however, taken action to contact professionals to address the changing needs of a person regarding appropriate care provision in the future.

We saw people were accessing the community with staff support. However, the management of the rota did not show where staff were available to provide this. Whilst the provider told us staff worked flexibly to support people as and when needed, we were not assured from the records provided, that people’s time to access the community was planned with them, or indeed, they could be spontaneous in their choices and decisions.

People received care from the same staff team who were consistent and had worked at the service for a few years. They had a good understanding of people’s needs and personalities. The staff supported people with the continuity of having contact with their family members. Feedback from partners obtained between January and May 2025 showed they did not have any concerns regarding the care of people using the service.

The provided did not always provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. People’s care plans were not written in a way which was easily accessible to them. These were handwritten with varying styles of staff handwriting making them difficult to read.

The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) which sets out a specific approach to identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information needs of people. Staff could tell us about people’s level of understanding written or verbal information.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and recorded. Where people needed communication aids to help staff understand them, such as picture cards and access to paper and pen, this was provided and utilised well. Staff helped people with understanding written instructions or appointment letters, so they did not miss important times and dates. Most people could read and understand standard text.

The service appropriately supported people to give their feedback, share ideas or make a complaint. There were no outstanding complaints being dealt with. Meetings were held every 3 months to discuss people’s views and ideas. The care manager told us people had not raised any concerns about their care and support.

Records showed people’s views and ideas were considered such as meal choices, activities and daily tasks. The care manager told us that people had been involved in the recruitment of care staff in the past.People had access to independent advocacy to represent their views and support their decision making.

There was a system in place to record any compliments, complaints or concerns. Records showed the provider had taken action to respond to people and family members on any issues raised and had responded accordingly.A survey of family members and professionals was undertaken in January 2025. Positive comments were made about the service and the staff.

People had equal access to the shared environment which was accessible to them. However, there were potential barriers such as stairs and steps within the service which people could manage at present but ways in which to remove these barriers had not been reviewed for people’s future needs.

Everyone who used the service received care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it and what worked for them. Staff had advocated for people to ensure their health needs were met, to reduce the impact of barriers to care. This included being flexible around times of healthcare appointments to alleviate distress and anxiety.

People were supported to attend planned hospital appointments. Staff were able to tell us about equipment people needed such as a wheelchair to support them to access the community or when a taxi was needed to make the journey more comfortable.Staff worked with professionals such as the GP, district nurse, local authority, the epilepsy and behavioural support team to support people with their health and social care needs.

Some people were more likely to experience inequality than others at the service. For example, where people were deprived of their liberty because of their health and safety needs, they were less likely to have the same opportunities to have their social needs met, increasing the risk of loneliness or isolation. Whilst we saw some evidence people had access to the community with staff support, there were not enough arrangements in place for people who were being deprived of their liberty to promote similar opportunities for them to be engaged and to be accompanied in the local community.

Staff told us they knew people well and had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion in the past year to better understand and respond to people’s needs. However, people’s protected characteristics were not recorded in their care plans to ensure staff knew their ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation and their rights and freedoms were upheld.

People could time spend with their relatives and friends, and they were able to visit the service. The provider gave us an example of where they worked together with a person and their family to remove barriers to enable them to have a personal relationship. This was of benefit for the person and increased their outcome and experiences.

People who could access the community independently did so and made their own arrangements. Support was provided where needed. People were able to access experiences such as holidays of their choice, and this was arranged with them. A person told us, “Holidays are great, I like going away.” Staff expressed commitment to continually developing their approach to ensure people had access to positive experiences.

People were not supported to make informed choices about their care and plan for their future care whilst they had the ability to do so. The provider had not considered and planned ahead to support people with future life changes. People were not involved with future planning, including where there may be issues about physical frailty and capacity.

People’s care plans did not include relevant information to show there had been discussions with them or their family members or representatives about planning for the future. We did not see that steps had been taken to have these conversations or, if people and family members wished not to discuss it. We did see however, a family’s wishes in relation to the emergency response if their relative had a cardiac arrest.

Staff were not caring for anyone who was needing palliative or end of life care. Staff had not received training in end-of-life care. However, the care manager told us training for staff would be arranged to meet people’s needs as and when required.