Broom Lane

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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has remained outstanding.

This meant services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.
 

This service scored 93 (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 was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their relatives consistently described care that was built around what mattered to them, with active involvement in decisions about routines, activities and daily life. One relative told us, “We discussed his weekly timetable… he’s gone for a hike recently… he had a two-hour walk yesterday,” demonstrating how involvement in care planning led to increased engagement in meaningful activities and improved day-to-day experiences.

People were supported to live in ways that reflected their interests and preferences, including maintaining relationships, accessing the community and participating in activities that were meaningful to them. Feedback indicated that staff adapted support flexibly in response to changing needs, rather than following fixed routines, ensuring care remained responsive and individualised.

Care planning and review processes were structured, ongoing and clearly linked to people’s preferences and goals. Plans were regularly updated to reflect changes in need, and staff worked collaboratively to agree and implement changes. Information was shared across teams to ensure consistency in how care was delivered.

Observations confirmed that person-centred care was embedded in practice. Staff supported people at their own pace, offered choice naturally and adapted interactions based on how individuals presented. People were confident in expressing preferences and were supported in ways that reflected their routines and communication styles.

Outcomes demonstrated that person centred approaches resulted in meaningful improvements, including increased engagement in activities, more tailored daily routines and support that reflected individual needs. Changes to care were clearly linked to people’s preferences and feedback, showing that care planning was dynamic and responsive.
 

The provider had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People experienced continuity of care from staff who understood their preferences, routines and communication needs. We saw that staff were consistently allocated and worked in a way that reflected people’s individual support requirements. This supported familiarity and stability, which reduced the risk of disruption to care and promoted consistent, positive experiences for people.

Leaders organised staffing arrangements to maintain consistency. Records showed that staff were carefully matched to people and that shadowing was used to support compatibility. When concerns arose, these were promptly escalated and addressed. This meant that continuity was actively maintained, strengthened and sustained over time.

Care systems supported timely and effective adjustments when needs changed. We reviewed records showing that changes to routines, staffing and support strategies were implemented in response to increased need. External professionals contributed to reviewing care and agreeing actions. This ensured that care remained appropriate, well-coordinated and responsive across services.

Systems supported coordination within the service and effective involvement of external partners. There were clear examples of collaborative working to review care and respond to change, with evidence that information was shared and used to support coordinated decision-making. This demonstrated an increasingly proactive approach to integration, supporting continuity of care as people’s needs changed.
 

The provider was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up to date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were provided with accessible information that helped them understand their rights and choices within their home and support arrangements. Easy read materials explained key principles, including that their home belonged to them, how support was provided and their ability to make decisions about their daily lives. This supported people to understand their independence and control within their living environment.

Information also set clear expectations about how staff should behave, including respecting privacy, seeking permission before entering people’s homes and supporting people to make their own choices. This reinforced people’s understanding of their rights and the standards of care they should expect.

Staff supported people to understand and use this information in practice. They were expected to explain choices, support decision making and ensure people were involved in how support was delivered. This ensured that information was not only provided but actively used to support people’s involvement in their care.

Processes ensured that information was adapted to meet people’s communication needs, including the use of easy read formats and other accessible approaches. Information was aligned with care planning and day-to-day practice, supporting consistency between what people were told and how care was delivered.
 

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives consistently described feeling listened to and able to influence decisions. They said staff responded when they asked for changes and supported them to express their views in ways that suited their communication needs. One relative told us, “Oh yes I have no issues,” when asked whether their views were listened to, reflecting confidence that concerns and requests would be heard and acted upon.

There was clear evidence that people’s views led to action. Feedback was used to shape care, including adapting routines, increasing access to activities and responding to health and wellbeing needs. People and relatives described how involvement in reviews led to meaningful changes in support, demonstrating that feedback was not only gathered but actively used to improve experiences.

Systems to gather and respond to feedback were well established and consistently applied. These included structured approaches to engagement, regular review cycles and processes to ensure feedback was shared with staff and incorporated into care planning. Where people had limited verbal communication, staff used structured observation and behavioural understanding to interpret preferences and ensure their views were included.

Leaders had oversight of engagement processes and ensured that feedback was reviewed and used to inform both individual care and wider service improvements. Actions were recorded, tracked and reviewed, providing assurance that changes were followed through and sustained over time.
 

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

People were supported to maintain relationships, take part in activities and access opportunities in the community that were important to them. Staff adapted support, including routines, staffing and levels of assistance, so people could continue to take part in things that mattered to them when their needs changed.

Staff recognised when people experienced barriers to accessing services, such as delays or changes in need, and took action to address these. They worked with health and social care professionals to seek support and follow up where needed, helping to ensure people received appropriate care in a timely way.

Care was reviewed with input from other professionals, and changes were made to support continued access to services. Staff took steps to help people overcome difficulties in accessing support so that care remained consistent and suitable.

People were able to access the care and opportunities they needed. Staff responded when needs changed and adjusted support to help ensure people continued to receive appropriate and consistent access to services.
 

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.

Staff supported people in ways that reflected their individual needs, backgrounds and circumstances. People received care that was tailored to them, including support to take part in activities, maintain relationships and follow routines that were important to them. Staff adapted their approach when people experienced anxiety or distress so individuals could remain comfortable and engaged.

Staff recognised when people required additional or different support to achieve similar outcomes. They adjusted care, including changes to routines, environments or staffing, to ensure people’s needs were met and support remained consistent. Staff worked with health and social care professionals when needed to review care and agree changes. This helped ensure people received support that reflected their individual needs and helped prevent avoidable differences in how care was experienced.

People experienced care that was responsive and adapted to their needs, and staff took action to help ensure people received consistent and appropriate support.
 

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans included clear information about people’s preferences, routines and communication needs. People were supported to express goals and aspirations. This meant that planning was tailored to the individual and reflected what mattered to them.

Planning systems were structured and regularly reviewed. These included person-centred care plans, Positive Behavioural Support frameworks and multi-disciplinary processes. Plans identified early warning signs and set out proactive strategies. This supported staff to recognise changes early and respond in a planned and coordinated way.

External professionals were involved where needed. Multi-disciplinary processes were used to review care and agree next steps. Leaders escalated concerns when additional input was required. This ensured that planning was informed by a range of expertise and supported informed decision making.

Care was adjusted following planning reviews. Records showed changes to staffing, routines and environments based on identified needs. This meant that planning processes led to timely updates in care, which supported stability and reduced the risk of deterioration.

Planning systems demonstrated a responsive and increasingly proactive approach. Data was used to inform decision making, and there were clear examples of planning supporting improved stability and engagement. This information was also used to strengthen anticipatory planning and reduce future risk.