Brindley Court

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We observed people were not always treated with compassion and dignity. Systems in place to ensure people were treated as individuals were not always effective. Although the provider employed staff who planned and coordinated social events and activities, further work was needed to ensure activities were designed to meet people’s individual interests and needs. While there were systems in place to promote the wellbeing of staff and to enable them to carry out their roles, improvements were required to ensure people received person-centred care.

This service scored 55 (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 not always treated with compassion and dignity. One person told us, “Staff do not always introduce themselves and can be grumpy when helping me.” Another person told us, “Staff often speak to each other in their own language.” Another person told us, “Staff speak nicely to me, but they do have their niggles with each other, and it is not nice to hear.”

Staff gave mixed feedback about the quality-of-care people received. One staff member told us, “I think people are well cared for although some care staff are moody, and the language barrier can be an issue.” Another staff member told us, “I make sure I speak with residents and help people with their personal care however I do have to always remind other colleagues to interact with people.” Another staff member told us, “I think staff are compassionate with people, but they do rush.” The registered manager told us, “I think our staff are good at supporting people with care tasks however we need to improve how staff interact with them. Some staff continue to wear face masks following the Covid 19 pandemic, which helps them to feel safe from the risk of infection, however this can be a barrier to communication with residents.” Another staff member told us, “Some people need more interaction than others, but staff do spend time with people. We focus on people's personal appearance and nails.” Another staff member told us, “I believe people receive good care, we speak to them respectfully, we check on people and make sure their needs are met.”

Professionals visiting the care home told us people were treated with dignity. One professional working with the service told us, “When I visit the home, the staff speak well with residents. There are enough staff, but I do feel they tend to rush from one person to another when I visit.”

We observed people were not always treated with compassion and dignity. Where one person requested support, before lunch, to go to the toilet, they were not assisted in a timely way. They were served their meal before staff assisted them to use the toilet however when they returned, staff had not noticed their meal had been taken away. When staff were informed by a member of the inspection team, their meal was brought back to them. Where a person told staff they did not ask for a food item on their plate, a staff member removed the food directly from the plate and the person was not asked if they would like an alternative meal. People generally spent most of their time in their rooms. We saw minimal evidence of interaction between staff and residents and of activities taking place.

People told us they were not always treated as individuals. One person told us, “Staff are busy and do not have time to spend with you.” Another person told us, “Staff seem friendly but have no time to chat.” Another person told us, “Some carers are nice, but some couldn’t care less.”

Staff told us people were treated as individuals. One staff member told us, “People are well cared for. I have worked in lots of places, but this home is good. Management is really particular about people's care, from staff training to care plans being up to date, and they really want to get people's feedback.” Another staff member told us, “We know people’s emotional and physical needs and respond to those needs.” The registered manager told us staff liaised with each other to plan vegetarian meal options to meet a person’s religious needs. However, while there were many positives in people’s support, we could not be sure people were always supported in a meaningful way that encouraged them to live their life to the fullest. Staff support was task orientated.

While we observed one instance of staff being deployed effectively to ensure one person’s communication needs were met where their first language was not English, we found people generally spent most of their time in their rooms and we saw minimal evidence of interaction between staff and residents and of activities taking place.

Systems in place to ensure people were treated as individuals were not always effective. Overall, people’s care plans included information about their individual health needs. However, we did identify instances where one person or their advocate had not been involved in their advanced care plan and one care plan did not include enough detail about what triggered the person’s distressed behaviours and how staff should manage them. While people’s care plans included information about their cultural, social and religious needs, these needs were not always met. For example, one person who attended church regularly prior to their placement had not been supported to receive visits from a priest, to attend church or to virtually partake in church services. Staff had received equality and diversity training.

People told us they did not always feel like they had choice and control in their care. One person told us, “I feel safe but bored. There are no activities for me to do.” Another person told us, “Some carers have limited time with me. I am asked if I would like to get up and go to bed too early.”

Staff gave mixed feedback about how much independence, choice and control people have. One staff member told us, “I’ve not seen any rigid institutional behaviour. Some staff want to get residents up, but we remind them it’s their home and treat them as such.” Another staff member told us, “Some residents don’t always like how staff are with them, but I think this is due to differences in culture.” Another staff member told us, “We respect people's wishes and offer alternatives. We listen to them and ensure we are not deciding things on their behalf.” Another staff member told us, “Residents are involved in putting their activity plans together and take part in one-to-one and group activities.” The registered manager told us, “We are trying to change things so people can have more control over their care as this has not always been the case.”

While people had activity planners on their bedroom walls and had wellbeing care plans in place which recorded their social preferences, we found people spent most of their time in their rooms and there was minimal interaction between staff and residents. We saw minimal evidence of one-to-one or group activities taking place.

Although the provider employed staff who planned, and coordinated social events and activities, further work was needed to ensure activities were designed to meet people’s individual interests and needs. While people had activity planners on their bedroom walls and had wellbeing care plans in place which recorded their social preferences, people’s activities were not recorded accurately. For example, records listed people’s names and activities however there was no information to indicate which person participated in which activity. This meant we could not be assured what activities people participated in and how effective they were at meeting their individual preferences. Where one person’s care plan had information about their religious and cultural needs and preferences, this had not been explored further by staff which meant their religious needs were not currently being met. Where required, people had access to specialist equipment to support them with their care needs and to maximise their independence.

People gave mixed feedback about how staff responded to their immediate needs. One person told us, “When I press my buzzer, staff seem to come and switch the buzzer off but don’t talk to me or do anything.” Another person told us, “Staff don’t always answer people when they are calling out.” Another person told us, “I have a buzzer which staff respond to although I do have to wait longer at night.” Another person told us, “I have a bell at the side of the bed. There is always someone at the end of the bell and I don’t have to wait long.”

Staff told us people’s immediate needs were met. One staff member told us, “We always respond to people’s needs.” Another staff member told us, “We monitor call bell response times in daily flash meetings.” The registered manager told us, “While staff need to improve how they meet people’s social needs, they do pride themselves on going about completing care tasks.” However, as we received mixed feedback from people in this area and our observations did not confirm staff feedback, we could not be sure this was always happening.

While people’s immediate needs were mostly met, we observed one instance where a person was not supported to use the toilet in a timely way.

Staff feedback was mostly positive about how the management team supported them in their roles. One staff member told us, “I have one-to-one meetings with the [registered] manager. We discuss residents’ needs and focus on person-centred care. We work through things to try and give good care.” One staff member told us, “The manager is very good and gives me a lot of support. The interim clinical lead is also very supportive.” Another staff member told us, “I have other commitments, but the [registered] manager supports me to work flexibly. Also, when I ask about people's eating and drinking needs, management help me with this.”

While there were systems in place to promote the wellbeing of staff and to enable them to carry out their roles, improvements were required to ensure people received person-centred care. Staff wellbeing and how to promote person-centred care was discussed in one-to-meetings with a senior or manager, and in team meetings. Handover meetings took place to ensure staff were up to date with people’s needs and risks.