Bramcote Hills Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked at evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment, we rated this key question requires improvements. At this assessment the rating changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were involved with planning their care. One person said “I have been asked to look at any assessments or care plans. I have one from my rehabilitation nurse but not one from the care home.” People told us they had seen improvements, and their needs were understood by the staff team.

The management team told us they were still working on improving care plans but felt staff were aware of peoples assessed needs. Staff had good knowledge of how to support people’s needs, and what action to take if the person’s needs appeared to have changed. Staff told us they were not involved with assessing people’s needs and this was done by the management team who would inform the staffing team of any changes.

We found improvements had been made to risk management since our last visit. However, we continued to find care plans were not reflective of people’s needs. Information had been copied and pasted and not always person centred. Staff were not always provided with clear guidance and information. For example, for one person their communication care plan stated the person can verbalised their needs and their dementia care plan stated they could not verbalise their care needs. Another person’s care plan had not been reviewed since September and their needs had changed. This meant people were at risk of not having their assessed care needs met. The provider had not used a range of national assessment tools to understand people's needs and how best to support them. For example, we continued to find Waterlow assessments were not completed. A water low risk assessment is a vital tool in identifying and/or managing pressure ulcers. People’s communication needs were not always recorded. This meant staff were not always provided with guidance how to communicate with people, to give a clear understanding of the persons needs. We did observe improvements to people who required support with distressed behaviour.

We observed that people were still waiting for their meals, although not for as long as our last visit. For example, we observed one person received their meal and their daughter supported them with eating. However, this person had finished their meal and another person who was independent was still waiting for their meal. Staff told us people who required support, or had dietary requirements had their meals first, and then everyone else’s meals were provided.

Staff were not clear on safe practice and we did observe a staff member support a person with their lunch while they were in a deep sleep and did not understand the risk of choking. Staff told us improvements to staffing levels meant people were provided with care and support at appropriate times and their needs were being met. Kitchen staff had good knowledge and understanding of people’s dietary needs and requirements and ensured these were met.

We observed a person tell staff that their incontinence pad required to be change. The staff member whispered something into the person’s ear and walked away and did not provide the support. The person was supported to eat their meal and then supported to change their pad. We did raise this with the management team at the time of the assessment. Improvements had been made to people’s nutrition and hydration.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.