Bracebridge Court

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 remained 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 made 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’s care plans demonstrated staff had considered people’s individual preferences and used this information to complete a personalised care plan for staff to follow.

There was some information in people’s care plans about what was important to them and their own personal tastes and preferences. People’s care records reflected their individual preferences and physical health. Some elements of some care plans would benefit from further details. For example, some important information around good catheter care and giving staff information on how to support people at end of life would help direct staff to support consistent care.

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.

Relatives felt supported and involved to continue playing an important role in caring for their family members. People and relatives described staff as being very kind, supportive and understanding of their relationships. One person said, “The staff are very kind and thoughtful when I want them, always quite respectful. I’m left alone, it’s how I like it but if I ask them to get something special, they do.” One relative told us, “I have never been aware of staff rushing people or anyone else here and they do help when she needs it.”

The management and staff team had built effective partnership working with external healthcare professionals and commissioners of services so people could be confident of receiving the care they needed at the right time.

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

People’s care plans detailed people’s sensory needs and the support they needed to understand information, including whether they wore spectacles or hearing aids. They also guided staff on how to approach people to support their understanding and communication.

Information was available in accessible formats. For example, there was information in large print and pictures in communal areas about the date and weather. Staff described to us how they knew some people who were hard of hearing and they made sure the person was directly in their vision so they could see facial expressions and gauge from lip movement on what was said.

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 day to day care.

People were encouraged to provide their feedback at regular meetings. One staff member told us, “We do a resident meeting every month to see how they are getting on and whether there is anything else we can do to make their lives better." Relatives and their family members said they were not involved incare planning meetings or reviews but did say they felt confident to raise any feedback or suggestions. Some relatives thought they had completed quality surveys whilst others had not. There wereno planned or regular meetings because in the past they were not always well attended. In this case, the manager and senior management were available and had an ‘open door’ should anyone wish to speak with them.

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

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and care plans reflected how people needed their care provided in an individual way for them. Staff knew which external healthcare support to request depending on the level of urgency. For example, 1 staff member told us they would request support from the rapid response team for catheter related issues or end of life care.

Ancillary staff with non-caring duties told us they felt supported to raise any concerns about people to ensure they received the support they needed. One member of ancillary staff told us, “We so spend so much time with them (people) and we notice if they are not so into something they usually enjoy. There might be a reason behind that, so we report it."

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 recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity to improve outcomes for people. One staff member explained how they specifically positioned people with sight or hearing difficulties, so they achieved the maximum benefit from organised activities and events. This staff member also described how 1 person with profound hearing loss still participated in musical events by feeling the vibrations of the music.

People were not always supported to plan in enough detail for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. At the time of our inspection, 1 person was receiving end of life care.

People’s care plans reflected their basic preferences for where they wished to receive end of life care. However, there was no further and important information about people’s spiritual or holistic wishes for how they spent their final days. We discussed this with a senior member of staff who acknowledged this was an area for development. For 1 person, we saw where the person experienced a deterioration in health causing additional health concerns, there was limited information for staff in how to support and provide care in a way that may not cause any further discomfort. We spoke with a person about their end-of-life decisions, and they said, “I don’t recall talking about end of life. I have no idea about ‘do not resuscitate’ at all.” Other people and relatives said this discussion had not taken place.