Brompton House Care Home

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

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff respected their privacy and dignity. People and their relatives were positive about staff. People and relatives told us staff actively supported people to maintain as much independence as possible. Staff were observed supporting people with kindness and patience. Staff respected people’s privacy and asked for people’s permission before supporting them. Staff informed us they put people’s choice, dignity and independence at the centre of everything they did. However, they did not always offer people choices regarding their personal care due to poor deployment of staff.

This service scored 75 (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 treated with kindness and respect. One person told us, “I have been amazed by the patience of the girls (carers) here.” Another person’s relative said, “He is just being cared for in just the right way.”

Management told us resident and relative meetings were held to gather feedback, so people felt listened to. They also had daily meetings with heads of departments to discuss any changes required for people’s care.

Partners told us they felt staff were caring and respectful when they visited the home.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. During a period of observed practice staff were supportive and treated people with dignity and respect. We recorded many positive interactions between staff and people.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

Most people and relatives we spoke with told us they felt people were encouraged to maintain independence and were given choice. A person praised the service for having a choice of their carers’ gender. The person told us, “I only get lady helpers, which is what I want.” One person’s relative praised the choice of food offered by the service. The relative told us, “They are good and if she is not eating something they will offer another choice.”

Staff told us they knew how to uphold people’s right to dignity, respect and privacy. Staff we spoke with demonstrated commitment to people in the service and the importance of people being well supported. They knew how to promote people’s dignity and independence.

We saw people making choices, for example about when and where they ate. Staff regularly checked with people to ensure they were comfortable and did not need any support.

The provider had a range of audits to assess the quality of care provided. However, the provider’s audits failed to identify issues relating to people not always having choice of the type of personal care or the time they would like to be assisted.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.