Broadstreet House

We carried out this assessment on 24 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. People told us they made their own choices and gave examples of holiday destinations they had chosen, the meals they wanted to eat and where they wanted to go through the day or evening. A staff member told us some people are getting older and living with dementia, “We have adapted and learnt a lot to be able to continue to ensure people continue to have choices and can continue to enjoy their home and opportunities.” A relative said, “(Relative) needs a lot of help to understand things and they always have the time to explain things to them.”
There were enough staff to ensure people received the support they needed, including frequently accessing the local community on a daily basis, or where people needed a designated member of staff for a prolonged period to meet their individual needs. A relative said, “They always have enough staff and a good staff ratio.” Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people safely, including their individual needs such as epilepsy. Staff were encouraged and supported to gain health and social care qualifications to enable development opportunities. People’s individual risks were managed well and people or their relatives were supported to be involved in the process to ensure a holistic approach. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. Although lessons were learnt from incidents involving people and their support was adjusted accordingly, this was not always evidenced through records to ensure a robust approach. However, this had not impacted on people’s care and support and people and their relatives told us they felt safe. A relative commented, “Yes, it is very safe. The staff are very considerate, they look after her, and the building is a very safe place.” Staff were confident in their knowledge and responsibilities in keeping people safe from abuse. People’s medicines were administered and managed safely. People were supported and encouraged to understand the medicines they took where appropriate. For example, some people took antihistamine medicine at certain times of the year and they understood this.
Most staff had worked in the service for long periods of time and knew people very well. This meant they were able to recognise changes in health and wellbeing quickly and seek advice from a healthcare professional to prevent further deterioration. People’s needs were assessed and records updated with any changes to ensure only up to date information was used. Staff took an exceptional approach to supporting people to achieve positive outcomes and maximise future opportunities. Staff were aware if something had changed when they were on days off or holiday and up to date records meant people could be supported well if they needed to attend hospital or an appointment. Records in relation to people’s rights within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act if their capacity to make a specific decision was in doubt were not always completed. However, this had no impact on people as we saw the support and encouragement given to them by staff to maintain their rights to choose and consent. People and their relatives told us they made their own choices, and these were respected. A relative said, “They do support her to make choices and they do listen.”
Staff could describe what was important to people and how they tailored their support to make sure the important things were maintained. For example, visiting family and inviting their family to visit them. The atmosphere was relaxed and staff promoted a caring culture that was felt by people. Many staff told us they felt like a family and loved coming to work. People’s independence was an important part of the daily routine and when people’s circumstances and health changed this continued to be a crucial aspect of their support.
Care and support was extremely person centred, both in practice and in care planning. People had regular meetings where they were able to voice their opinions and ideas and felt listened to. There was a culture of listening to people day to day. People had equal access to opportunities and the facilities on offer, no matter their abilities and strengths. A staff member said, “Everyone is an individual with individual wishes and needs. We help them to reach their potential.”
Staff told us without exception that the service is a great place to work. They said they were very well supported by the registered manager and members of the board. A staff member said, “If the registered manager is not here, I would pick up the phone to any board member, no problem.” Comments from staff included, “It is fantastic”, “We all get on really well and support each other” and “It is a happy place.”