Bronte

People said they felt safe with staff and enjoyed their company. Staff knew how to report any abuse and knew people well. Staff supported people who had capacity to make decisions about risk.

Risk assessments were completed to promote independence and minimise risks to people. Care plans were clear and detailed with sufficient guidance for staff to keep people as safe as possible. Referrals were made to local health professionals when required such as the community nurses and GP.

There were sufficient, safely recruited staff who had received training to meet peoples’ needs.

The home was clean and tidy with a homely feel. People’s individual needs were met by the adaptation, design and decoration of the premises. The provider undertook regular health and safety checks.

We saw improvements in aspects of the service we assessed.

Staff empowered people to make their own decisions about their care and support.

Staff knew about people’s capacity to make decisions through verbal or non-verbal means and this was well documented.

For people that the service assessed as lacking mental capacity for certain decisions, staff clearly recorded assessments and any best interest decisions.

Staff demonstrated best practice around assessing mental capacity, supporting decision-making and best interest decision-making.

We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were requested to deprive a person of their liberty.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and respectful. Staff spent time with people and acknowledged them as they went about their work. Staff promoted peoples’ choice and independence in a personalised way. Policies and practice supported people to have maximum choice and control over their lives.

Health professionals praised the home for providing kind and compassionate care with support specific to peoples’ needs.

People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them, this included access to their friends and family. For example, care plans documented the importance to people of seeing their family and friends. Activities formed an important part of people’s lives. People engaged in a variety of person-centred activities. For example, outside entertainers, film nights, games, arts and crafts and celebrating key times of the year.

There was a range of appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes.

People received personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences. Care plans reflected people’s health and social care needs.

Staff commented that the information contained in people’s care files enabled them to support them appropriately in line with their likes, dislikes and preferences.

Care plans were detailed and included personal preferences, such as how people liked their personal care delivered. Daily notes showed care plans were followed.

People’s equality, diversity and human rights were respected. The service’s vision and values centred around the people they supported.

People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays, and protected their rights.

People were constantly encouraged to lead rich and meaningful lives to aid their physical, mental, emotional needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

The service worked with other health and social care professionals in line with people’s specific needs. Care files showed evidence of professionals working together. For example, GPs and community nurses.

The provider completed monthly care reviews with people to gather feedback, where needed, this resulted in changes to people care and support. The provider also completed an annual survey with people. Feedback gathered during these processes was reviewed and any actions needed formed part of a service development plan. Staff told us they supported people to feedback on their care.

People confirmed they were involved in developing their care and support plan.

Although we found good practice at this assessment, until we have assessed more quality statements in effective and well-led the rating for this service remains the same.

There were clear and effective governance, management and accountability arrangements in place and staff understood their role and responsibilities.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Audits were completed on a regular basis as part of monitoring the service provided. This enabled any trends to be spotted to ensure the service was meeting the requirements and needs of people being supported. Where actions were needed, these had been followed up. For example, care plans and risk assessments updated and involvement of relevant health and social care professionals.

The service had notified CQC in full about any significant events at the service. We use this information to monitor the service and ensure they respond appropriately to keep people safe.

Staff spoke positively about communication and how the registered manager worked well with them, encouraged team working and an open person-centred culture.

The provider implemented relevant quality frameworks, recognised standards, and best practice to improve equity in experience and outcomes for people living at Bronte and tackle known inequalities.