Broadacres 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 received mixed views about the provision of social activities at the home. Some people said they were involved in activities whilst others were left with very little stimulation. People’s communication needs were not always met effectively and where people needed interpreters or specialist, they were not available for staff to use. Notice boards were not always up to date with current information and information that was displayed was not always clear.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We received mixed views about the provision of social activities at the home. Some people said they were involved in activities whilst others were left with very little stimulation.

Staff confirmed that they did not always have the tools to ensure effective communication with people who needed additional support.

Feedback from the local authority who were carrying out a contract quality review and assessment indicated that people's personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) were not consistent. Issues identified and logged in people's care plans about sight and hearing needs were not documented in PEEPs. Additional feedback from the local authority informed us that a person's first language was not English and their care plan recorded a language barrier because they did not speak English. No effort had been made to overcome this and there was no documentation about how he does communicate. Staff said they don't know what they want when they try to communicate with them.

People did not always have access to the communication support identified in their care plan. One person's care plan stated that an app was used to communicate with them because their first language wasn’t English. We asked staff about this and they told is that the app was not in use and an interpreter had not been sourced. Notice boards were not always up to date with current information and were not always clear. For example there was a notice board on the staircase leading to upstairs unit which had a photo of the train carriage room, but no explanation of what it was and how it was used. The train carriage interactive screen in the room was not operational.

People did not share any experiences of accessing information in the home. They did tell us they were sometimes bored, “Bored, yes you can be but then you just sleep it off”.

Staff told us they did not always have the correct tools or access to the appropriate support to ensure effective communication with people and provide information to them in an accessible way.

On the first day of inspection, people did not have much stimulation and nothing much going on in the home. This had improved on the second day for people who resided on the downstairs unit. However on both days, people living upstairs had very little stimulation and there were occasions when the lounge was left unattended and other times when staff observed from the door without engaging with anyone. Notice boards were not always up to date with current information and were not always clear. For example there was a notice board on the staircase leading to upstairs unit which had a photo of the train carriage room, but no explanation of what it was and how it was used. The train carriage interactive screen in the room was not operational.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

Feedback from people indicated that activities are now only for people who live upstairs and not people who live downstairs. The management team indicated that this is not the case but people who spoke to us understood that activities were only to be provided to people upstairs in groups and no more 1-1 activities/interactions.

Staff told us there had been a change in approach to the delivery of activities across the service that had not been communicated effectively with people who lived in the service.

We reviewed people's care plans and saw no evidence seen that people were involved in the planning of their care and the support. Care and support did not appear to be personalised or tailored to the needs of the individual. There were some examples where people were supported to do things that they enjoyed e.g. there was person singing along loudly to opera in her room but we were unsure if this was self-directed activity or whether it was supported by staff. Irrespective of this, the person was clearly enjoying singing along to the music with gusto and passion.

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.