Brompton House 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

We assessed the responsive key question and found areas which required improvement. We identified 1 breach related person-centred care. Care plans and risk assessments were not always person-centred. Some people told us they felt unable to follow their routines due to the poor deployment of staff. Most people and relatives praised the quality of activities provided, however, these were irregular and there was little provided for people who were unable to leave their rooms.

This service scored 62 (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. Some people told us it was difficult for them to follow their routines such as waking up earlier or going to bed at a certain time. There was no full-time activities co-ordinator in post at the time of our visit. The provider was actively recruiting for this post. People praised the quality of activities, however, these were irregular. People who were unable to leave their rooms received almost no activities at all. For example, one person received only 2 activities in June, and both recorded activities were ‘chat in her room’. One person old us, “They are kind, they do stop and chat a bit when they are with me, but I don’t have proper conversations.” One person’s relative told us, “They seemed to have been more short staffed more recently. Mum loved to go and join in activities, but I don’t think she has been so often recently.”

Management told us people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. However, staff told us they were not always able to provide person-centred care due to ineffective staff deployment. A member of staff told us, “Shift patterns changed, night staff reported that they struggle with assisting people to bed, but we were told that is because night staff are lazy.”

During our inspection we saw that some people’s choices could not always be respected due to inefficient deployment of staff. This was confirmed by people. One person commented, “I do get a shower sometimes but only if the girls have time.”

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

One person’s relative said, “Generally they will listen.” Some people’s relatives told us they had raised the issue of staff deployment, however, the service failed to act upon it. One person’s relative told us, “I think that mainly they are short of staff. We have often been in at noon, and she is still waiting to be got up and we have seen that she is trying to get up. We did raise the issue at a Residents/Relatives Meeting but they said they had always had a few staff problems.” The relative told us they had made some suggestions regarding a person’s care, however, they were not informed if the service was going to address their suggestions. The person’s relative told us, “We are still not sure if that has been followed up or not.”

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 meetings for feedback. There was also a complaints policy in place.

There were processes in place to make sure people’s involvement in their own care and in the running of the home. Staff supported people to voice their opinions in a format that suited them. For example, there was one person using British Sign Language (BSL), and we saw staff using BSL when communicating with this person. However, people could not always follow up their own routines and preferences due to poor deployment of staff. Although there were numerous processes for people to raise concerns; feedback from people and their families suggested these were not consistently effective at driving change or improvement.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.