Broom Lane

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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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 always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Assessment processes were comprehensive and consistently applied. Records showed that people’s needs, risks and outcomes were clearly identified, and these informed detailed care plans. This meant staff had clear guidance on how to support individuals, resulting in care that reflected people’s current needs and reduced the risk of unmet or misunderstood need.

People’s needs were understood in a personalised way. Care plans included information about preferences, routines and communication styles, supported by structured approaches such as visual tools. This enabled staff to tailor their approach, which supported engagement and reduced the likelihood of distress or refusal of care.

There was consistent involvement of external professionals where needs were complex. Multi-disciplinary input informed assessment and review processes, including contributions from health professionals, social workers, PBS practitioners and families. This ensured that decisions were informed by a range of expertise, leading to more robust and appropriate care planning.

Assessment processes were responsive to change. Records showed that when people’s needs increased, reassessments were completed and care was adjusted, including changes to staffing, routines and support strategies. This meant that care remained aligned with people’s needs over time, supporting stability and reducing risk of escalation.
 

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care plans included clear instructions based on people’s individual needs, including how to support communication, routines and behaviour. Staff followed these in practice, which helped ensure care was delivered consistently and in line with agreed approaches.

Staff used recognised frameworks, including Positive Behavioural Support, to guide how they supported people. They identified triggers, early signs of distress and appropriate responses, and supported people using consistent strategies. This helped reduce distress and supported people to feel more settled.

Staff recognised when people’s needs changed and updated care accordingly. They worked with health professionals, including specialists, to review care and implement changes based on professional advice. Care reflected current needs and incorporated relevant expertise.

Care was reviewed and updated over time. Staff continued to follow agreed approaches and adjust support as needed, and people experienced care that was consistent, appropriate and based on recognised good practice.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People received support from staff who understood their needs, preferences and routines. Staff shared information within teams and adapted care when people’s needs changed. People experienced care that was consistent and reflected their day-to-day needs, which reduced the risk of confusion or disruption.

Staff used care plans, records and day-to-day communication to share information with each other. Updates to care were communicated to staff, and changes were put into practice. Staff knew people well and were able to respond appropriately when needs changed.

Staff worked with health and social care professionals, families and others involved in people’s care. Professionals contributed to reviewing care and agreeing changes to support. People were supported by staff who worked with others to make sure care remained suitable and responsive.

People experienced care that was coordinated between staff and professionals, and support was adjusted when their needs changed. Staff continued to work together to share information and maintain consistency in how care was provided.
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing 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.

People were supported in ways that reflected their needs and preferences. Staff adjusted routines, activities and levels of support when people became anxious or distressed. People received support at their own pace, which helped them stay engaged and reduced the likelihood of situations escalating.

Staff recognised changes in people’s health and wellbeing and responded appropriately. People received timely support when their needs changed, which helped reduce risks and maintain stability. Staff worked with health professionals, including specialists, when additional support was needed. Care was reviewed and updated, and people received support that reflected their current needs.

People experienced care that supported their health and wellbeing, with staff providing consistent and responsive support in day-to-day practice.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Leaders reviewed information about people’s care, including behaviour, incidents and engagement, to understand how people were experiencing support. This helped identify patterns, such as when people were more likely to become distressed or disengaged. Staff recognised changes in people’s needs and responded in a timely way.

Staff used this information to adjust care in practice. For example, where patterns of distress were identified, staff adapted support approaches, updated care plans and adjusted staffing arrangements. These changes resulted in some people experiencing fewer incidents of distress and more consistent support.

Leaders also reviewed staffing information alongside care information to ensure support remained appropriate. Changes to staffing supported continuity, and people were more consistently supported by staff who knew them well.

Care and outcomes were reviewed over time, and staff continued to adapt support based on what was effective. People experienced care that was better matched to their needs, with evidence of improved consistency and reduced distress for some individuals.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were able to make choices about their daily lives, including activities, food and how they spent their time. Records and feedback showed staff provided explanations where decisions were made, supporting people to understand and be involved. Staff supported people to express preferences, and care reflected their choices.

Consent processes were structured and personalised. Where people lacked capacity for specific decisions, there was evidence of appropriate best interest decision-making, involving relevant professionals, family members and external partners. Capacity assessments recorded how people communicated their preferences and participated in decisions.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and paid close attention to how they communicated, including non-verbal cues. Staff respected people’s wishes and changed or stopped support when people showed they were not comfortable or did not want to continue.

Communication approaches, including visual supports, were used to help people understand and take part in decisions.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to consent and adapted their approach to meet individual needs. Leaders had oversight of consent and capacity processes, including review of decision-making.