Brandon House

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

Care plans and risk assessments were not always person centred. People said they were not involved in care planning and information was not always informative or tailored to their needs. People told us they were able to share feedback and raise complaints. However, there was no evidence of people being involved in decisions about their care or in other aspects of the home. Although there was the opportunity for people to give their feedback there was no evidence of this being actively sought. End of life care plans were in place, but these were not detailed. People told us they were involved in activities and participated in community ventures.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People provided mixed feedback about their care being person centred. For example, some people felt staff understood their needs whilst others did not. Care plans and risk assessments were not always person centred. For example, one care plan referred to a person in two different names and it was unclear what their preferred name was.

Management told us people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices. However, staff told us they are unable to provide person centred care. One staff member said, “Doing what the residents needs are is what we should do and not what the management want. Getting them all up when they don’t want to first thing on a morning, this isn’t person centred at all.”

During our observations we found staff knew people’s preferences and provided care as people preferred. Staff did not rush people and gave appropriate support.

People told us they were involved in activities and participated in community ventures. Comments included, “A teacher from the school across the road rang and asked if I would go in and do a talk about the second world war. [Name of staff member] asked me if l would do it, I like to do them, and it gets me out. I do talks about the second world war. I tell them about the war and which areas of Leeds was hit” and, “I have a friend here and I have been colouring a picture of flowers and a cat. I have done other ones they are on my wall. I like colouring, I am a good at it. They have a very good professional singer who comes in. [Name of staff member] arranges board games and bingo. I sometimes go, it depends how I feel. I can choose what I do. I like to go into the garden, when I want to.”

Management told us they understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined up. However, we did not see evidence of this during our assessment.

We gathered feedback from the local commissioning and safeguarding team who said management at Brandon House had been attending meetings with the Local authority to build relationships.

Records showed staff and management did not always liaise with other health and social care professionals involved in people’s care in a timely manner. Clear records were not always maintained about advice given by those professionals to enable people to receive continuity in care provision.

People told us they were not involved in care planning and information was not always informative or tailored to their needs. They did tell us they obtained verbal feedback and views. One comment was “They ask what you think about it.”

Management told us they provided up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to individual needs however, we found no evidence to support this.

Information was not provided in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. For example, one person whose first language was not English had not had their support plan explained or given to them in a format or language that met their communication needs.

People told us they are able to share feedback and raise complaints. People said, “I can talk to them, but I haven’t had to” and, “We had a word with them about four weeks ago because [Name] needs consistency with the same staff who knows them and what [Name] needs. The seniors and regular staff look after [Name] and it’s better for them. At weekends they have agency staff who don’t know [Name]” and, “If I had a problem, I would go to [Name of staff member] and I could talk about it.”

Management told us they made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We did see signs up in the home asking for feedback to be left online and for relatives to attend relatives meeting for feedback. There was also a complaints policy in place. However, there was no evidence of people being involved in decisions about their care or in other aspects of the home. Although there was the opportunity for people to give their feedback there was no evidence of this being actively sought.

There were no processes in place to make sure people had involvement in their own care and in the running of the home. If people shared this then it was generally listened to, however this was not actively sought.

Some people told us they could access the care, support and treatment they needed. People said, “Yes, they do take me to all my appointments” and “I have tooth ache. I have had it for eight weeks, so I have been taking lots of Paracetamol. They have tried several times to get an appointment at the Dentist and I am waiting for one.”

Management and staff told us they supported people to access the care, support and treatment they needed.

On gathering feedback from the local authority commissioning and safeguarding team, no concerns were identified in this area.

We saw no evidence that management or staff reviewed people’s needs to ensure changes were documented to enable appropriate planning for their individual circumstances and ensuring equal opportunity to care and support.

People did not raise concerns in relation to experiencing inequality in experience or outcomes.

Management and staff told us people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes were supported and care tailored for this. However, during our assessment, we found care plans and risk assessments lacked detail and information in relation to achieving good outcomes.

An equalities and diversity policy was in place and most staff members had completed relevant training to ensure people were treated equally, fairly and free from discrimination. However, people were not always respected in their wishes, for example one person’s care plan stated that they wished to be supported by male staff, however, was regularly supported by female staff with no explanation evidenced. This evidenced that although the appropriate question had been asked it was not always acted upon.

People told us they were not involved in planning of their care. Comments included, “I don’t know about any care plans” and, “I don’t know about care plans.”

Staff told us they had end of life training online; however, we found no evidence of this on the training records. The provider did not send us any evidence of the staff who had completed this training. Management told us that they are now building a relationship with the palliative care nurse and have arranged end of life training.

End of life care plans were in place, but these were not detailed. For example, one person’s care plan lacked any information as to how the person wished to be supported by the home should they require end of life care. The person’s preferences and wishes had not been recorded.