Brandon Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service.

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.

Although the service had a documented vision to provide personalise care, we heard some less positive comments from people about how staff interacted with them. A small number of people commented staff “told them off” if they rang their call bell unnecessarily. ‘Inappropriate use of call bells’ had also been noted in minutes from a staff meeting. The registered manager told us this was unacceptable and confirmed this would be dealt with immediately.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the service delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty. There had been significant incidents and safeguarding concerns which had not been notified to CQC as expected. We are dealing with this outside of the assessment. The regional manager and deputy manager provided assurances this would be resolved straightaway. Staff commented that they received very good support from the deputy manager and registered manager. However, some staff commented they would appreciate additional wider support from the provider.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People and staff said they felt able to share their views about the home. A staff member commented, “We give suggestions that we know will be of help and is looked into by the management and we always get feedback.”

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. A staff member commented, “The good thing I enjoy in working at Brandon is it is like a big family. We take care of the residents as everyone takes care of a family member, making them happy. I have a good relationship with my colleagues, the management and the residents.”

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. Although quality assurance audits took place, they had not been effective in identifying shortfalls within the service. For example, this included concerns with medicines administration records and a lack of learning from previous events.

Audits lacked detailed analysis to provide reassurance about action taken to keep people safe and identify lessons learnt. Care records were not always accurate or fully completed. For example, more information was required about people’s life histories and more person-centred information about how they wanted their care provided.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. Staff worked with other professionals to provide people’s care.

The service did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcomes and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. There was very limited analysis of accidents, incidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints to allow lessons to be learnt to help keep people safe.