Archived: Bradbury House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs were assessed, assessments included using best practice tools where appropriate. This included people’s needs relating to their protected characteristics such as disability and religion. People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed if and when this was needed. Where people needed support to make decisions this was in place. Staff followed appropriate processes where they needed to make decisions in people’s best interests and these decisions were recorded as required.

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.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting enabling them to provide person centred care and meet people’s individual needs. Staff told us, “We ask people, what would you like to do? What interests you? We ask their families and find out what they used to do for a living, what their favourite foods are and so on”.

People told us that staff knew them and their needs and preferences well. One person said, “[The staff member] knows I like to go out to the shops and to the coffee mornings.” And “They know me well and I tell them what I like”.

People’s needs were assessed before moving into the service to ensure staff had the skills required to meet their specific needs. Assessments were used to generate comprehensive care plans with people and their relatives. The provider used recognised best practice tools for assessing risks such as skin damage, nutrition and pain to keep people’s needs assessments updated. Assessments also include finding out if people had any protected characteristic needs such as religious needs or needs related to culture or disability. This enabled staff to build up and maintain a picture of what the person was like and how best to meet their needs.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff understood the importance of involving people in decisions as much as possible. One staff said, “I never assume consent from anyone, and people can change their minds and their preferences”. Other staff told us, “If someone declines care, we respect their choice and try again a bit later, encourage them with a cup of tea and a biscuit or try a different carer”. Staff explained to us they would always ask someone if they wanted support with areas such as continence or personal care before providing this support.

People were asked for consent prior to receiving care and were offered choices. One relative said, “Mum will let you know what care she needs.” Where people were unable to make decisions, relatives were involved in planning people’s care. One relative told us, “The service keeps me involved with all decisions”. People were offered day to day choices such as where they wanted to sit and what they wanted to drink.

There were systems and processes in place to assess people’s capacity to make decisions for themselves or with support. For example, some people had bed rails, bed rails are a restriction and can only be used with consent or where they are in people’s best interests and the least restrictive option. Where these were in place people’s capacity to agree to these has been assessed. Where people did not have capacity, a meeting was held to decide in the persons best interests. Best interest meetings included Independent Mental Capacity Advocates and family members in decision making as appropriate.