Archived: Bethrey House

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

The service was not always responsive. We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations. The care people received was not always person centred or responsive to their needs. People did not always have information provided to them in a format they could understand. People felt their care was delivered in a consistent manner and some plans for end of life care were in place.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people we spoke with felt they were not always involved with their care or received it in their preferred way. One person did say, “The staff understand my needs; they know just how I like my tea which means a lot.”

The nominated individual told us everyone had a plan in place that was tailored to their needs. Staff were not always able to demonstrate what a person-centred approach was. One staff member said, “I am not sure that is something we look at here.”

We observed people were not always supported individually. Throughout the day people were not always offered individual choices, individual care, care that was responsive to their needs or care and support that was in line with their individual likes and dislikes.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the continuity of care they received.

Staff and leaders felt they offered consistent care to people. One staff member told us, “We try and keep to people’s routines.” However, when asked staff could not always tell us about people’s routines or they gave us differing views on what these were.

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority They told us they had recently attended Bethrey House and found concerns. They had worked with the provider to put in place an action plan which they shared with us. This action plan demonstrated multiple concerns around care provision.

The systems and processes in place were not always effective to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed and updated, as we found this was not always completed.

People and relatives raised no concerns with how information was provided for them.

The nominated individual told us information was available for people in different formats if they required this. Staff confirmed pictures were not available in the home to use for people who communicated this way. One staff member said, “We don’t have any flash cards or pictures that I am aware of, we don’t use them no.”

Information was not always provided for people in a way they could understand. One person’s first language was not English, they had a care plan in place that said they could make choices and should be communicated with using pictures, these were not used during our site visit and staff confirmed these were not available. Some people had care plans in place detailing how they communicated however these were not consistently completed for people.

People were unable to tell us how they were involved with their care and the running of the home.

Staff and leaders told us people had the opportunity to be involved with their care by attending residents’ meetings. They were unable to tell us how the information from these meetings was used to make changes to the care peoples received.

The systems in place were not always effective to ensure people were listened to and involved with their care. We saw residents’ meetings had taken place, however these were not monthly as documented, and the last one had been in May 2024. When residents meetings had taken place and concerns had been identified, there were no follow up actions recorded or plans in place identifying how these changes or improvements were going to be made. There was a complaints policy in place, and this was available for people should they need it. We did not see any complaints had been made.

People raised no concerns with the access they had to care and treatment.

The nominated individual told us the people they supported had not experienced any inequities in accessing care since they had taken over running of the home. They were aware of the action they would take should they encounter this. Staff were unable to explain to us what this meant for people. One staff member said, “No we don’t look at that in a care home.”

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority They told us they had recently attended Bethrey House and found concerns. They had worked with the provider to put in place an action plan which they shared with us. This action plan demonstrated multiple concerns regarding the care and treatment people received.

There were no effective processes in place to monitor equity in access or to take action if needed. As care was not always assessed, reviewed or monitored effectively and consistently in the home it was unclear how any inequalities would be identified. There was no evidence to show staff had received up to date equality and diversity training.

People and relatives raised no concerns with their experiences of care in relation to equality.

The nominated individual was aware of potential inequalities people living in the home may experience. However, staff we spoke with were unable to demonstrate an understanding of this and provide examples when asked.

There was no effective system in place to monitor people’s experiences in relation to their care experiences and outcomes. Other than residents’ meetings that did not consider this, peoples experiences were not sought from the provider and care needs and plans were not consistently assessed or reviewed.

People and their relatives raised no concerns with the planning of end-of-life care. However, when asked people were not aware if they had been involved or asked about this.

The nominated individual told us “They should be in the people’s care files”. However, we were unable to locate these and when asked, the nominated individual was unclear why they were not in people’s care plans.

End of life care plans were not always place for people when needed. When completed these had considered people’s choices and preferences during this time.