BH Residential Care Home

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care, including people’s involvement in their care and ensuring records were up to date and accurate. Although each person had a care plan, neither they or their relatives could recall being involved in its completion. Care plans viewed also contained some contradictory information, which had not been picked up during care plan reviews. Resident meetings had recently been introduced with one held to date. Surveys were also used to gather people’s views, although a better process was needed for reporting on actions taken as a result of feedback. Complaints received had not been logged or stored in the complaints file. The provider was working to ensure information was provided in formats which were tailored to individual needs. 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 plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Each person had a care plan, which explained their care needs and how these should be met. However, people and relatives we spoke with could not recall being involved in the care planning process. As people’s involvement was not documented, we were unable to confirm whether they had been involved or not. The care plans we reviewed were quite detailed, and included a range or person centred information. However, each contained some contradictory information about people’s needs or abilities, which would have an impact on how care was delivered, especially for newer staff or agency workers, who may not know these people well. For example, a person was reported to be unable to use their call bell in one section of their care plan, but able to use it in another, with staff asked to ensure it was within reach. A person was reported as being able to choose their own clothes and get dressed without support in one section, whilst in another it stated they required assistance with dressing. Monitoring charts, used to document specific care tasks had been completed, had not been filled in contemporaneously. As a result, we were unable to confirm people’s needs had been met consistently. We identified gaps in bowel monitoring, oral care, hygiene and repositioning charts.

The provider worked with other professionals and services to ensure continuity of care when people transitioned into the home. We noted one example of a person who had completed a graded transition from their own home into BH Residential Care Home. The transfer process had involved another care provider who worked with this person in their own home. Staff from that care provider spent time with the person at BH Residential Care Home, to help them settle in and feel comfortable in their new surroundings. The home maintains links with this same care provider, who provide support for support people to access the community.

The provider had taken steps to meet the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. For 1 person who did not speak English, flash cards had been created which contained key words and phrases in both English and the person’s language, along with images which reflected the word or phrase. Staff used these to support communication. Some staff working at the home spoke this person’s language, and acted as interpreters for visiting professionals when meeting with this person. However, more work was needed to ensure information on display, such as complaint or safeguarding information, could be read and understood by everyone living at the home.

The provider used a number of processes to gather the views of people and relatives, which included resident meetings. People and relatives we spoke with could not recall any meetings taking place. However, this may have been due to only 1 meeting having occurred, which was in September 2024. We saw posters on file advertising 2 other meetings earlier in 2024, but no evidence these had actually taken place. At the meeting in September 2024, people’s views and recommendations had been captured within meeting minutes although there was no evidence these had been acted upon as yet. The providers complaints file contained no complaints, nor a log on which to document complaints, actions taken and outcomes. As such, it appeared as if none had been received. However, we viewed a document titled ‘complaints monthly data analysis 2024’, which listed 3 complaints received in June, July and November 2024. As these were not logged in the complaints file, there was no evidence they had been investigated in line with the provider’s complaints policy or if duty of candour had been followed.

The provider used an electronic care planning system, which meant all care plans and risk assessments were created and stored on a computer. People and in some cases, their relatives, should be able to access information about their care and support easily and without barriers. There was no information about this in the service user guide, and as most people didn’t have regular access to a computer, it was not clear how people and/or their relatives would access this information due to it being electronic. The manager told us they would print a copy the care plan for people if required. We recommended they add this to the service user guide, so people knew this was an option. We found the premises to be accessible. People could freely move about the home. The lift was in good working order, with a system in place to ensure people could not access the basement level where the kitchen and medicines room located, for their own safety.

Feedback from people, relatives and professionals had been sought through feedback forms, which allowed them to share their views on the home and care provided. A feedback summary document was used to capture positive feedback received via this process. However, there was not currently a system or process for actioning negative comments. Feedback from a visiting professional had included some areas of concern, but these had not been logged on the feedback summary document. There was also no evidence the concerns had been explored in more detail or action had been taken to address them.

At the time of assessment, no-one was currently receiving end of life care. However, the provider had clear processes in place for supporting people at this stage of their life. The manager was able to explain in detail how care would be delivered, how professionals such as district nurses and the GP would support this process and the importance of including the person’s family throughout.