Braceborough Hall Care Home

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

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

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

This service scored 75 (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 ensured people’s care and treatment were effective by regularly assessing and reviewing their health, wellbeing, and communication needs in partnership with them. Most care plans showed ongoing reviews and updates to reflect changes in people’s needs, ensuring care remained person-centred and responsive. During our visit, we identified one instance where a person did not have a specific care plan for a particular health condition. Although some details were recorded elsewhere, the information was fragmented and did not provide a complete picture. The registered manager acted promptly to address this and reviewed all care records to ensure no other gaps were present.

People and relatives were involved in the way their care was planned and their care reflected what was important to them. Relatives told us they supported their family members in sharing information about their care needs on admission and felt involved throughout. Staff demonstrated strong knowledge of people’s individual needs and explained that people, relatives and themselves continued to be involved when care plans were reviewed. This collaborative approach ensured care remained person-centred and responsive to changing needs.

People’s needs were assessed using nationally recognised tools. Throughout our visits we saw the tools were used effectively. For example, the Waterlow scoring system was used to identify risks of skin tissue damage. Staff used the outcomes of these assessments to implement appropriate measures, including providing specialist equipment and ensuring people were re-positioned in line with their assessed needs. This proactive approach helped reduce the risk of skin breakdown and promoted people’s comfort and safety.

People, relatives, and external health professionals told us the registered manager and staff worked effectively with other healthcare teams to provide joined-up care. One relative commented: “I think they work well with us and doctors to keep on the ball.” A visiting health professional described staff as very proactive in addressing people’s health needs. We observed an example where a person required support from an external health professional, and staff acted promptly to ensure this was arranged without delay.

Throughout our visit and in our review of care plans, we saw people were encouraged to maintain their health and independence. Staff supported people while promoting autonomy in areas such as mobility, personal care, and nutrition. Meals offered were varied and well-balanced, and both people and relatives told us staff encouraged regular eating and drinking. One relative commented: “They can’t do any more to help [Name] eat. They always watch what is going on their plate, so [Name] isn’t over-faced, and they wait for them to eat at their own pace.” This demonstrated a person-centred approach to supporting nutritional needs.

Staff worked collaboratively with people, relatives, and health professionals to monitor health and promote positive outcomes. Relatives shared examples of how staff had improved their family members’ wellbeing. One relative explained that before admission, their family member experienced frequent falls. Staff worked with the person to maintain safety while supporting their preferred level of mobility. Measures included providing mobility aids and using a sensor mat to alert staff if the person moved around at night. The relative praised staff for their approach, noting they always walked at the person’s pace to help maintain independence.

Throughout our visit, we observed staff consistently seeking people’s consent before providing care. Relatives told us they had seen staff working with people to gain consent and encourage participation. One relative explained their family member required significant encouragement to eat and drink, and staff worked together to support this. However, if the person declined a particular food, staff respected their choice and continued to monitor intake to ensure they ate at another time. This demonstrated a person-centred approach that balanced respect for individual preferences with proactive care.