Braintree Nursing Home

We reviewed 6 quality statements under this key question; safe systems, pathways and transitions, safeguarding, involving people to manage risk, safe and effective staffing, infection prevention and control and medicines optimisation. During the site assessment people and their relatives told us they felt safe living at Braintree Nursing Home. The registered manager promoted a positive culture based on openness and transparency. Concerns about safety were listened to, investigated, and reported to the relevant authorities where required. Staff had been recruited safely. There were enough, suitably trained staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines in a safe way and as prescribed. Risks to people had been assessed and planned for. Care plans contained information relating to individual people’s needs and guided staff as to how to reduce these risks. Effective infection prevention and control measures were in place.

We reviewed 4 quality statements under this key question: assessing needs, delivering evidence-based care and treatment, monitoring and improving outcomes and consent to care and treatment.

We found that people were involved in their care and their consent to receive care was sought by staff and the management team. Where people could not consent to care, the appropriate legislative processes were followed. People had their needs assessed before care commenced and expressed how they wished their care to be delivered. People were supported to have their nutrition and hydration needs met. There were effective approaches to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes.

We reviewed 3 quality statements under this key question: kindness, compassion and dignity, independence, choice and control and workforce well-being and enablement.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to remain independent. People were supported by a caring staff group who respected their choices and preferences.

We reviewed 4 quality statements under this key question: person-centred care, listening to and involving people, equity in experience and outcomes and planning for the future.

People were supported to make decisions about their own care and support. Staff treated people as individuals, providing a person-centred approach. People had access to activities and opportunities to engage in their hobbies or interests. People had access to external health care professionals to ensure their health needs were met. Where possible, staff supported people to plan and document their end of life wishes.

We reviewed 5 quality statements under this key question: shared direction and culture, capable, compassionate, and inclusive leaders, governance, management and sustainability, partnerships and communities and learning, improvement and innovation.

Staff were clear about their responsibilities and roles and felt supported by the manager and management team. Staff spoke positively about the leadership and culture of the service. The provider had quality assurance systems and processes in place. However, they were not always effective in monitoring the oversight of the service, this was in relation to medicines management and oversight of agency records. Following the assessment visit, the manager sent us an updated templates of their auditing processes which they were about to implement at the service. The manager took immediate action after the onsite assessment visit to update agency staff records, amend their medicines auditing processes and review people’s mental capacity assessments where required. We did not find these improvement needs affected the safety and quality of people’s care and any future risks were mitigated by the actions taken by the manager during this assessment.