Broom Cottage

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 the last inspection (publication date 2 March 2023) this key question was rated Good. At this inspection the service remains 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 where possible and others, such as external professionals and relatives, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s individual routines, preferences and what was important to them had been assessed and planned for. However, we were aware the manager was in the process of ensuring care records provided staff with detailed guidance due to the level of people’s dependency and reliance on staff for all their needs. This was important due to new staff commencing who were unfamiliar to people.

From speaking with staff on site who were experienced staff or who were bank, but had been used regularly, we found them to be knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs.

Communication systems supported staff to be kept up to date with any changes, appointments and outcomes.

Our observations of people being supported by staff was overall good. The atmosphere was positive, calm and relaxed. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff present. Staff supported people with their individual routines.

Relatives told us they were confident their relation was supported well by staff. A relative said, “[Relation] has been there since it opened, and they are very settled and well cared for.”

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.

People were supported to access their local community. Staff supported people to access leisure and recreational opportunities, and further work was being completed to enhance people’s community opportunities.

The care team had recently developed into a team of permanent staff, and they were supported by a new experienced management team. This meant the use of bank and agency staff were expected to reduce, therefore increasing consistency and continuity of care.

People had lived at the service a long time, and their mature and ageing needs were taken into consideration. For example, 2 people had experienced falls and a potential concern was identified with a person using the stairs. Care records confirmed actions taken to mitigate further risks and this included referrals to external professionals for assessment and guidance.

The provider had systems and processes, including policies of how people would be supported to transfer to alternative settings if the need arose. This included how information was shared to support continuity of care.

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

For example, people had access to easy read information such as what people could expect from the service, what safeguarding meant and how they could make a complaint. We also saw examples of care plans and records that included the use of pictures to support people.

The provider had a data protection policy and procedure and understood their responsibilities under the Accessible information standards. Confidentiality of people’s information was respected.

The provider had systems and processes to support people to share feedback about their experience about the service or raise complaints about their care and support. Whilst staff involved people in decisions about their care, this was an area for further development. The manager had identified choice making and participation with activities needed reviewing and staff upskilling.

People had access to professional advocates who visited them and reviewed their care records, to ensure care and support was meeting their assessed needs. Advocates acted on behalf of people and raised any questions or concerns in relation to care delivery.

The provider also had quality assurance procedures that enabled people and their relatives to share their experience of the service. Feedback was analysed and a document stating ‘You said’ ‘We did’ provided information of actions taken in response to feedback.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure, and this had been made available to people, relatives and visitors. At the time of the inspection, no complaints had been received.

Relatives told us they were able to raise and issues, concerns and complaints and felt confident they would be acted upon. They also confirmed their feedback about the service was asked. A relative said, “I would always say something if I had a complaint, I’d speak to whoever was in charge. We sometimes get questionnaires, and relative meetings have been introduced, we’ve had a meeting with the manager that was good. There’s nothing to improve.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support they needed when they needed it. People had equal access to care and support, and did not experience any barriers. Equality and human rights, including people’s protected characteristics were known, understood and planned for.

For example, people accessed all areas of the service, there were no restrictions. People were supported to attend health appointments, including health screening and care records confirmed referrals to external health professionals were made in a timely manner when required for further assessment and or guidance.

The staff rota confirmed sufficient staff were deployed to meet people’s care and support needs. Staff had access to out of hours management support in the event of an emergency requiring additional support and guidance.

Relatives were positive how their relation was cared for and supported.

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.

We received no concerns in relation to discrimination or inequality.

The provider had systems and processes that monitored people’s care and support needs, including health conditions, People’s care plans and records confirmed how people’s care and support was provided, monitored and reviewed.

People were supported with planning for their end of life. For example, funeral plans were in place to support staff in meeting people’s future needs.

People had not been supported by staff to identify future goals and aspirations, such as an activity they may wish to experience. The lack of activity outcomes was discussed with the management team who recognised this was an area for development.