Braydeston Court

The individual risks to people had not always been identified, recorded, mitigated or reviewed and this placed people at risk of harm. Whilst permanent staff delivered caring, patient and respectful care that gave people choice, dignity and independence, care assessments had either not taken place, were incorrect, lacked detailed information or had not been reviewed; this risked people receiving inappropriate care particularly as agency staff were being used to fulfil shifts. We also found concerns with the medicine management within the home.

We could not be assured that people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not consistently support them in the least restrictive way and in their best interests; the systems in the service did not support this practice. Where Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been authorised, we could not be assured that attached conditions had been met.

Staff had not received the consistent training, support or supervision required to ensure they met their roles and the needs of the people who used the service. We also had concerns that the staffing levels at night would not be adequate to keep people safe in the event of an emergency such as a fire. There was some evidence to suggest there were not consistently enough staff to always meet people's needs in a person- centred and timely manner.

The culture within the service was positive and caring. Staff told us they worked well as a team. However, the provider needs to ensure they fully engage with staff, the people who use the service and their relatives as they told us communication and support wasn't consistently reliable in relation to the service being delivered. Relatives did, however, confirm staff were good at keeping them informed in relation to the health and wellbeing of their family member.

People's nutritional needs were met and there were activities available. Visiting was in line with Government guidance and the infection prevention and control systems in place were good. The premises and equipment were clean, and staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately.

The provider had made improvements to the environment including redecoration, new furniture and fixtures and the introduction of a café. Plans were in place for further improvements. People told us they were happy living in the home and their relatives told us that whilst further improvements were needed, they would recommend the home.