Broadland House 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.

At our last comprehensive inspection completed in October 2019 we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment or that they received consistent person-centered care; staffing levels were not consistently sufficient to ensure this. Additionally, people’s holistic needs had not been fully assessed to ensure they were met. These included people’s needs in relation to their health conditions and leisure interests. We also saw examples of where care had not been delivered as assessed. For example, some people had not received regular support with their oral health needs.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of the people who used the service and how they supported them to integrate with the local community. For example, despite the service specialising in supporting people living with dementia, they had no dedicated care plans in place to help staff understand how people’s dementia individually affected them and what support they required. Furthermore, the service was unable to demonstrate they supported people to feel integrated with their local community. However, people were supported by a consistent group of staff who knew their needs well.

The provider supplied accurate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs, and people had communication care plans in place describing what support they required in relation to this. Relatives also told us the service provided them with prompt information as required and that communication was good.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The relatives we spoke with told us they were involved in their family member’s care and support and were able to raise concerns, feedback or ideas as needed. We saw that a complaints policy was in place and that complaints were logged and investigated.

The provider promoted equality for the people who used their service and ensured premises were accessible. We saw that people had reasonable adjustments made to ensure they received care that was equitable and this included in relation to communication and mobility needs. Our observations confirmed the premises were accessible.

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. The service advocated on behalf of people who used the service knowing their age, health conditions and physical disabilities left them vulnerable and at risk of inequity in their care. This was supported by staff who has received training in equality and diversity.

Whilst 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, associated care plans were basic and lacked detailed person-centered information.