Broadland House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last comprehensive inspection completed in October 2019 we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Whilst people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, we did observe some shortfalls in relation to maintaining people’s dignity. For example, during our inspection, we observed a person having a topical cream applied to their upper legs in a communal area and a person having their skin exposed during a moving and handling procedure. However, we saw interactions made by staff, with people who used the service and each other, were kind, compassionate and considerate. The relatives and professionals who provided us with feedback confirmed staff interacted with them with kindness and professionalism.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff were able to demonstrate they knew people’s care needs and preferences well, and we saw that care plans considered people’s strengths and abilities. Our observations during our inspection, and feedback from relatives, confirmed this.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Whilst the service supported people to maintain relationships with people that were important to them, they had failed to ensure people had regular access to a range of activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing. Our inspection and observations confirmed this and the relatives who provided us with feedback raised concerns about this aspect of the service. A relative told us the lack of activities was a ‘problem’ and that they felt their family member would get ‘bored over time’ with the lack of stimulation. Another relative explained how their family member liked a therapy session the service used to arrange but this had now stopped.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Our observations showed that staff responded kindly to people who needed support of any kind and that they understood people’s needs to ensure their comfort.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff; however, they did not always support or enable them to deliver consistent person-centered care due to staffing levels. Some staff told us this and our observations confirmed this. However, staff told us they felt cared for, valued and supported.