Bramcote Hills 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

We identified one breach of the legal regulations relating to this key question. We assessed 2 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection. People were supported to live in a safe, inclusive environment in which they were treated fairly and free from the fear of being discriminated against. People were supported to understand their equality and human rights and how staff and managers would respect these. Managers made sure staff were given appropriate training and supported to treat people equally and fairly and reduce the risk of them being excluded from receiving care and support they were entitled to. Managers used people’s feedback to improve care to reduce any barriers people might experience due to their protected characteristics.

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.

There was a lack of person-centred social activities and stimulation to meet peoples social needs. People were observed without access to stimulating activities. There were no allocated activities staff member on day 1 of our assessment and the staff member allocated on day 2 of our assessment did not interact with any people because they were completing administrative tasks. This meant care staff could only provide activities if they found spare time. This was not a person-centred approach, and this put people at risk of boredom, low mood and social isolation.

People were not always supported with their daily routine in line with their preferences. A staff member told us night staff were allocated a certain number of people to support out of bed and complete peoples personal care prior to the morning shift starting at 7am and this had helped to ensure people were all up and ready in the morning. This was staff focused care, staff had not considered when people would like to get out of bed. On the second day of our assessment a person was noted to be sleeping most of the morning. They told us they had been supported very early and had not been asked what time they would like to be supported. Staff told us they did not have time to ensure people had personalised care and support. Staff member told us, “you can’t give interaction to the residents as much as you like as you have to rush off to help another. It isn’t fair on the residents as they like and want the interaction, as well as the staff as we do this job to care for people, to interact with them, get to know them. In care they are like your second family, and it is horrid when can’t spend time with them properly.”

People were at risk of institutional care. We observed people bored with nothing to do or ant interaction. Care support was task and staff focused and not person lead. People were not provided with care and treatment when they wanted their care it was when staff could provide the care. This meant people were not supported in line with their likes, choices, consent and preferences.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Risk assessments and care plans had not been co-produced which meant people were not provided with the opportunity to be involved in their care decisions or be listen too on how they wanted to be supported. We observed care and support was staff and task focused and not person-centred care. This meant people did not have positive experience from their support.

Staff told us they were not responsible for care planning or risk assessing and this was the responsibility of the management and clinical team. Staff were not provided with time to be listen to. A staff member told us, “The staff want improvements, want to see it done better, want to see their concerns dealt with.” The management team told us they were aware care plans were not person centred and were working on updating peoples care plans. However, the management team could not explain what timescales they were working towards. The management team did not explain how they planned to involve people and/or relatives to ensure people were involved with their care plans.

The provider did not have a system or process in place to ensure people living at the service were listened to or involved in the decisions regarding their care. People, staff and relatives were not asked for their feedback regarding the service.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.