Breach House

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

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 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 records were reviewed and updated. Care plans provided good detail on how best to support the person and included a detailed "Who I am" document for current needs. Some files had good details on wishes, interests, goals, and life histories. However, other records lacked enough detail about life histories. We discussed this with the manager. This information matters because it helps people with dementia retrieve memories. Records also did not always show clear evidence people were involved in their own care. Despite this, people told us they still made their own daily choices. They decided when to wake up or go to bed, what to wear, what to eat and drink, and whether to join activities. Bedrooms were personalised with personal belongings, pictures, and meaningful items. People’s names were also displayed on their bedroom doors to help them identify their rooms.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Support was provided in line with people’s assessed needs. All staff had received the relevant training to support the people living at Breach House to ensure they could meet individual needs. For example, all staff had completed dementia awareness training, which helped them deliver safe and person-centred care.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed as part of the admissions process which is documented on an Accessible Information Standards (AIS) form on the person-centred software (PCS) system. Any documented needs people had were then incorporated into the communication care plan. Care plans contained guidance for staff on how to communicate effectively with individuals. The manager told us policies and contracts could be translated in different languages or easy read formats if required.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relative meetings were held regularly. These gave people a chance to talk about activities, day trips, food, and staff support. One person said, “We have a meeting once a month and we talk about what’s going on that month. They (staff) ask me if I’m okay.” The service also gained feedback from families using ‘Relatives’ Opinions Survey’ and ‘Statement of Quality of Care’ questionnaires. Recent comments included: “We speak to staff regularly if we need to, we are happy with the way [person] is being looked after. If there were any concerns we could ask the staff,” and “We very much appreciate the care [person] is given. There is plenty going on to keep [person] occupied.” People and their relatives were encouraged to raise concerns or feedback where required. None of the people we spoke with shared any concerns. One person said, “I have no complaints.”

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

Staff ensured people had access to services and equipment they required to meet their needs. For example, hoist for transfers. People had access to call bells to request assistance from staff when needed. One person said, “If I press my pendant, somebody will come to help me.” Another person told us, “I have used my call bell, and they (staff) come when I press it.” People had access to health care providers such as GP’s and district nurses.

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.

People were actively supported to follow their social, cultural, and religious interests and take part in activities meaningful to them. For example, staff arranged and set up a Zoom call for a person to attend a religious service. A person told us, “I still enjoy the Bible, and my religious friends visit me. They come to see me in the evening usually they’re very kind and I love them.”

Staff understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly, and to receive care free from discrimination. They completed mandatory safeguarding training and had clear access to equality policies. All staff were trained in equality and diversity. This helped them understand and reduce any prejudices which might affect people’s care.

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 had ReSPECT forms in place which were current. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures people’s personal wishes are followed. Some people’s death care plans could be further strengthened to include any spiritual or religious needs which were important to them. Staff had received training in end-of-life care.