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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people's needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment we assessed a total of 6 quality statements from this key question, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 supported to do things which were important to them. One person told us, “I like going out, I’ve been on trips out, very enjoyable. There are things going on most days and go along to what I want to. Some music and used to do exercises.” While a relative told us, “Music engages [person’s name]. [They] love music and used to be a good singer in a band. There are musicians/singers who come in.” Staff told us the provider supported them to deliver care tailored to people’s individual needs and important information about people was accessible in their care plans. Some staff told us how they had been supported to learn British sign language to communicate with a person who was deaf. We saw staff provided support which was in line with people’s preferences. For example, one person asked for a glass of wine with their lunch time meal, and this was provided for them.

People had access to receive joined up and flexible care with local facilities. Staff contacted external health and social care professionals, where it was identified this was required. The deputy manager told us they worked closely with other professionals to ensure a co-ordinated approach was taken in relation to people’s healthcare needs. They told us that meetings were being arranged to help improve communication, as this had been an identified area for improvement following the departure of the registered manager. Professionals were overall positive about how staff met the care needs of people who lived in the home. One professional said, “Our relationship has always been a professional one. The staff will contact us with any concerns or needs the patient has.” While another professional said, “Brompton [staff] are good at using the [electronic communication system] and always include observations for their residents. We have no concerns at present with their care for the residents.” However, all professionals who provided feedback felt communication could be improved upon. One professional said, “Mostly staff turnover/communication related - certainly not anything I need to flag up very urgently.” While another said, “The only matters that we can raise in order to improve is to improve on communication and follow up.” The deputy manager advised that while they had good communication with the external healthcare professionals on an individual level, the registered manager who had left the service in September 2024 had maintained this overall. The deputy manager and interim manager confirmed that meetings had been arranged to work with the various external teams to help improve communication. We did not find that this had a negative impact to the care provision of people who lived there.

People's communication needs had been explored with them, recorded, and shared with staff to promote effective communication. People told us they felt staff understood them, however some people told us they sometimes could not always understand what staff had said to them. Relatives told us that where appropriate they were kept informed of their family members health and wellbeing. Staff knew how to support people with visual and hearing impairments to communicate effectively with people. We saw staff took their time to explain and or repeat so people understood what they were saying. The provider was able to provide information in various formats dependant on people’s communication needs. The provider had processes in place for people, relatives, and staff to communicate with each other.

Meetings were held for people who lived in the home, along with their relatives. People and relatives felt involved in all aspects of their care and felt they had a voice and were listened too. People recognised there had been changes in staff but some people told us that they did not always know who newer staff were. One person said, “I don’t always know who new staff are, some tell me about themselves if they are new, but not always.” However, all people we spoke with told us that if they raised any concerns they felt listened to. Most people told us they had never needed to raise any concerns. Where a person had they said, “If you do have a complaint, [staff] see to it straight away. They are pretty good if you have trouble.” Staff told us they had regular meetings and had the opportunity to feedback any concerns or queries at any time. All staff we spoke with felt the interim manager and deputy manager were approachable, listened and acted upon their concerns. Systems were in place to gain feedback from people and relatives. The provider carried out surveys, which on the whole reported positive feedback in terms of the care provision. There were regular meetings held for staff to share their views and experiences, daily meetings with the heads of department were also held, who then cascaded information to their teams about things happening in the service. There was a complaints policy in place, where complaints were reviewed and responded to in line with the providers policy.

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.

People told us they felt supported and treated equally and fairly. One person said, “I am treated fairly. Not everybody likes the same thing.” While another person said, “People seem to get what they want. I don’t think people are treated unfairly.” One relative told us how their family member’s health condition had been well managed between the staff and the external health care professional, which overall had a positive impact on their wellbeing. Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff were aware of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Acknowledging diversity and valuing differences. Staff told us they felt well supported by their colleagues and management. Staff told us improvements had taken place and they were happier in their role which created a pleasant atmosphere at the service, which, in turn had a positive impacting on the support people received. Staff spoken with confirmed they had not witnessed or experienced any occasions whereby they had felt any of the people using the service were discriminated against, nor they had witnessed people not having their basic human rights met.

Discussions had been held with people and their relatives around their end-of-life wishes. Where people wanted plans in place, care plans had been written in line with the person’s individual wishes. These care plans meant staff had the guidance they needed to promote good, person centred care for people at this key stage of their lives. We saw thank you cards from families where staff had supported their family members with their end of life care with care and kindness. Staff had received end of life care training. They also confirmed they had good and timely support from external health care professionals when this was needed. The provider had systems in place, to ensure people had access to the right care and treatment at the time they needed this, so people would receive a dignified death.