Brun Lea Care

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation as risks to people's health, safety and welfare were not consistently assessed, monitored or mitigated. Concerns were identified in relation to care planning, risk assessments, pressure area care, moving and handling, nutrition and hydration, and medicines management, resulting in insufficient assurance that people were receiving safe care and treatment. As a result, people were not always protected from the risks associated with unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation as systems and processes were not effective in assessing, monitoring and improving the quality and safety of the service. Widespread concerns identified during the inspection relating to care planning, risk management, medicines management, recruitment processes and record keeping had not been identified or addressed through the provider's governance and oversight systems.

Records were not consistently accurate, complete or reflective of people's current needs, and auditing processes had failed to identify and address a number of the concerns found during the inspection. As a result, there was insufficient assurance that the provider had effective oversight of the service or that risks to people were being consistently identified and managed.