Brailsford House

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 service met people’s needs.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has improved to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always receive person centred care. While people had care plans in place, these care plans did not always include enough detail on their individual needs. For example, details of how people liked to be supported with their health conditions. People told us that they were not always involved with reviewing their care plans. This can impact people having control over the type of care they receive.

There was good continuity of care at Brailsford House. There was a stable staff team at Brailsford House, with a low turnover of new staff needing to be recruited. People explained that this stable staff team resulted in continuity of care, and good integration with external health and social care professionals.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was clearly displayed around the care home, to ensure people knew important information. For example, what food would was on the menu that day or how to make a complaint about their care.

People told us they felt listened to in the running of the service. The service held meetings with people, these meetings allowed them to feedback ideas about their care. Staff told us they listen to people’s choices throughout the day. People told us that they did not feel they needed to complain, but were confident that any concerns would be listened to.

The home and its equipment was not accessible for all people living at the service. The building had not been fully adapted to ensure people had easy access. The stairs did not have a second handrail to support people with mobility needs. This impacted people having easy access around the care home.

The assistive technology in the building was not suitable for everyone. A person had been at risk of falling when getting out of bed. A suitable motion sensor had not been arranged to support this risk. This meant staff would not be able to attend as quickly when the person was at risk.

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. Records were kept on people’s protected characteristics and support was offered to meet these diverse needs. For example, 1 person’s religion was described in their care plan, with details of how to support the person’s religious beliefs.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. A person at the service was coming towards the end of their life. There was a limited care plan to guide staff on the person’s preferences for their end-of-life care. This risks the person not receiving end of life care they would like. A staff member told us they felt they needed further training on how to provide good quality end of life care.