Broom Lane 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

Staff knew people well and were responsive to people’s needs. people’s feedback had been sought and most people were happy with the support they received. However, some surveys identified some areas that could improve but there was no action plan to address these comments. People told us they felt listened to and felt comfortable approaching staff for support. The provider had a complaints procedure and recorded responses to complaints received.

This service scored 68 (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 received person centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. People told us staff offered choices and supported them with the decision they had made.

Staff told us they knew people well and could speak confidently about people’s care needs.

Staff interacted with people in a caring and respectful way. Staff offered people comfort by gently placing their hand on someone’s shoulder and chatting with them. Another staff member knelt down so the person could see their face when they were communication with them.

People and their relatives felt staff assisted them to access healthcare. The doctor carried out a weekly visit, but people were also referred to the doctor in between if required.

Staff told us they knew people well and enjoyed their role. Staff and leaders told us they worked closely with external professionals to ensure people received timely and appropriate care which met their needs.

Visiting professionals gave mixed comments about the home. One professional told us care plans were detailed although there were some contradictions in information. No concerns were raised in relation to DoLS and working within the guidelines of the Mental Capacity Act.

The management team had processes in place to refer people to appropriate professionals.

Information was available to people via notice boards around the home and from staff. People told us they were involved in devising their care plans and felt a part of their care and support.

Staff and leaders knew people well and understood how to communicate with people in line with their needs. Staff ensured people had access to items such as hearing aids to support conversation.

We saw information was displayed around the service and particularly in the main entrance area. People had access to processes such as the complaints procedure.

People and relatives felt involved in day to day care and support. However, some people were not aware residents’ meetings took place. One person said, “They do have resident meetings. I never go thought. I am satisfied here so I don’t need to go and complain.” Another person said, “No they don’t have any residents’ meetings.” Another person said, “They do have meetings. I can’t remember the last one though.” People who had raised concerns told us they felt listened to. One relative said, “They do have meetings sometimes. They do listen to what we say, I think.”

Staff told us they listened to people and supported people in line with their preferences.

The management team explained processes in place to support people to feedback. However, some people had raised minor concerns and were not totally satisfied in some areas. However, there was no action plan in place to address areas which had not scored high. The provider had a complaints and compliments record which showed complaints had been acted upon.

People told us they had access to external professionals when required. People told us staff worked closely with the doctor and they were able to access appointments as required.

Staff told us they worked alongside healthcare professionals to ensure people received appropriate care and support. However, current and up to date records required improvement.

People had been referred to healthcare professionals as required. Dieticians, GP's, district nurses etc. Healthcare professionals had been supporting staff with improvements. Some visiting professionals had recently observed the mealtime experience and said improvements had been made. Another professional visitor said they had concerns regarding cleanliness, medicine management and leadership.

People had been referred to healthcare professionals as required. Dieticians, GP's, district nurses etc. Healthcare professionals had been supporting staff with improvements.

People told us they were supported to meet their outcomes. Staff respected people’s choices and supported people to maintain good health.

Staff knew people well and supported them in line with their needs and preferences. We observed staff offering choices and respecting people’s decisions.

There were detailed assessments in care records to give information to healthcare professionals when moving between services. We saw referrals were made when required to promote safe care. However, some risk assessments required further review to ensure they met people’s current needs.

People were involved in planning for the future. People’s preferences and wishes were recorded; however, these could be more detailed.

The management team informed us some people did not want to discuss future planning and therefore some care plans were not fully completed in this area. The manager informed us they had an understanding of people’s likes and dislikes and how they preferred to be supported. The management team agreed to update the documentation to reflect this.

Care plans included a section about planning for future care. These sections required more information to ensure people’s future requirements, choices and preferences were reflected.