Barton Brook 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

Care plans identified the support people needed and where they were independent. Several people told us they were able to say how they wanted staff to support them. We found the equality and diversity of people was respected. During mealtime we observed staff being patient and caring with the people living at the home. We observed good teamwork on both site visits made. Staff had developed good relationships with the people living at the home. This was observed, communicated in staff interviews and gathered in feedback from people. Some activities were on offer during the assessment but feedback regarding these was partly negative. People told us activities had been limited. Whilst on site a co-ordinator outlined plans in place for activities to be more inclusive for all in the home. At the time of the assessment, the activities and special events schedule had recently been updated to cover 7 days a week. The home had recently started to subscribe to Oomph – an on-line resource for activities. However, it was too early to gauge if this was meeting people’s needs. People were supported to maintain contact with relatives and friends, with visitors seen coming and going freely throughout the day.

This service scored 60 (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, dignity, and respect. One person told us, “The staff talk to me very nicely and I’ve never seen them lose their patience.” Several people told us they were able to say how they wanted staff to support them and staff respected their wishes. Relatives told us they found staff were caring and compassionate. A relative told us, “The unit manager is very approachable,” and said that staff attended to their relative’s personal care needs very quickly.

Staff understood the importance of providing a person-centred approach to care and support, based on people’s needs and their personal preferences, and outlined on ways they maintained people’s dignity. Staff considered teamwork and morale was good; there was respect shown for other colleagues, as well as good support from wider management.

Feedback we received from partners was positive. A stakeholder we contacted considered the home was very welcoming to all the professionals visiting and said, “All staff in the home are welcoming and helpful.” They reported no issues with the current management.

When observing staff there was genuine kindness shown towards people they supported. One staff member took people to the entertainment on offer and said, “Are you alright there [person’s name]? Enjoy yourselves ladies; I’ll be back in an hour.” We saw a person being comforted by a member of staff for over 15 minutes, until their distress eased. We heard jokes and laughter between people, with staff using appropriate language, whilst ensuring professional boundaries were maintained. We saw staff treating people with care, dignity and respect throughout our inspection.

People were supported to maintain links with their faith if this was their wish. The maintenance man had converted a Covid visiting pod in the grounds of the home into a prayer room space. This could be used by people and staff; people had attended a small religious service held by a local church. The room also doubled as a quiet meeting place for people and their visitors. One person we spoke with should have been ‘Resident of the Day’ but was unaware of this and had not been consulted. Some people felt there was not enough going on in the home.

The management and staff had identified further improvements needed to be made to promote people’s wellbeing and interests and to ensure personal, cultural and social needs were met. A ‘Resident of the Day’ scheme had been introduced to ensure people were regularly consulted by key members of staff in the home. People’s opinions would be gauged on aspects of the service, such as favourite meals, laundry and preferred activities. Staff told us they had tried to improve activities and support people to develop their own interests. They were aware of people’s changing moods, sometimes because of health conditions such as dementia, and told us how they would change their approach accordingly when providing personal care.

We observed staff treating people as individuals. Staff picked up on verbal and non-verbal cues and took appropriate action so that people remained calm. We saw a staff member offer personal care to a person; despite gentle encouragement the person refused; the staff member accepted this and continued to talk to the person. People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them.

The Resident of the Day scheme was in its infancy; it was not widely known about by people and staff we spoke with. This new process needed to be communicated better and further developed. Electronic communication care plans recorded how staff should effectively communicate with people. Staff could access the care plans, follow any guidance, and alter their communication accordingly. Care plans indicated the situations or times when people might develop anxiety or agitation, and the steps staff should take to respond. We saw occasions where staff followed best practice guidance when people refused personal care offered to them.

People told us activities and events had been limited. Some activities were on offer during the assessment but feedback regarding these was mainly negative. People’s wishes were respected; they were supported to have choice and control over their own care. People told us they were encouraged by staff to retain skills and independence was promoted. One person told us, “The staff know what they are doing and how best to support me; I can choose what I want to do and where I go.” People and relatives confirmed there were no restrictions on visitors coming into the service.

Staff told us they promoted independence as much as possible and gave people the time and space they required for this. For example, they would watch someone walking or eating independently, but be on hand to offer help if this was needed. Staff recognised how important independence was for some people. The manager told us a team of 2 lifestyle co-ordinators had been in post, trying to coordinate activities across all 4 units; they recognised these had not been consistent across all units. A new activities manager was in post, and spoke at length about ideas for new clubs, events and opportunities for the home. Soon after the assessment raised garden beds were created outside so that a garden club could be formed. The new activities manager outlined plans for activities to be more inclusive for everyone in the home. The plan was to have 7-day cover for activities and special events, and this was actioned shortly after the assessment.

There were few activities taking place on the first day of our site visit. On the second day we saw people enjoying entertainment in the afternoon. People who wanted to see the singer were brought together on one unit. Both people and staff were observed enjoying the entertainment and some were singing along. There were photos boards on the units, showing events that had taken place and activities people had participated in. Relatives and other visitors were seen coming and going throughout both days we spent in the home. The home operated a protected mealtime policy, but we saw some relatives were present at lunch time and this was not a problem.

The provider had recently started to subscribe to Oomph!, an on-line resource for activities. Staff had access to the application. It was too early to gauge if this approach to activities was a success, however it was useful in suggesting potential one to one activities that could be personalised for people. There was the option for relatives to have a log in for the app and this had been shared in a meeting. There was a process in place to capture information regarding people’s life histories; this could then feed into identifying relevant activities for people. Information regarding life histories was limited at the time of this assessment. The manager had identified this and had recruited additional activities staff to help improve in this aspect. Any equipment required to support people to be independent was recorded in care plans. Policies were in place to support visits from families and friends.

There were mixed responses to how long people had to wait for a response when using the call bell. One person who was supported with to access the toilet had experienced delays when requiring support from night staff, which had made them feel upset. However, another person told us, “They [staff] come within a few minutes; they come quickly in the night.” People and their relatives told us staff responded to them promptly when they were unwell, and records showed GPs were contacted for further advice and support.

Staff knew people well and recognised the value of person-centred care. This meant people’s support was individual and personalised to their needs and preferences. Staff told us how they were able to respond to people’s needs after getting to know more about the person. Staff recognised that on occasions people did have to wait for care and support as they were busy.

We observed staff worked hard and responded quite quickly to requests for assistance. Some units operated more smoothly than others; staff had more time to spend with people. This was not the case on Brindley unit on the day of our assessment as staff were very busy in the afternoon. This was supported by feedback from people and relatives on this unit. People were appropriately supported during mealtimes if this was needed or requested.

Staff felt well supported with the new management team and told us the culture of the home had changed for the better. Staff were receiving regular support from unit managers and wider management. Staff’s wellbeing had improved, and the home was now a nicer place to work. The home was using less agency staff as staff were offering to work extra hours, therefore people benefitted from a consistent staff team. Staff felt the work was manageable when they were fully staffed.

Regular meetings were held with staff to ensure their wellbeing was priority. Supervision of staff had started but this needed to be more consistent; this was a priority for the manager. Although formal supervisions with staff were not fully completed at the time of the assessment, staff had received observation and competency assessments. These involved the following areas; Moving and handling, safeguarding and dysphagia and IDDSI (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative). There were more opportunities for staff to access training for professional and personal development. Good teamwork was observed on both site visits, with good relationships developed between people and staff. This was observed, communicated in staff interviews and feedback from people gathered by CQC.