Broadland House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to 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 comprehensive inspection completed in October 2019 we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Whilst the relatives we spoke with told us they felt involved in their family member’s care, the provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not review people’s needs as regularly as they required. For example, despite the service assessing some people as being at very high risk of developing pressure ulcers, these needs were only being reviewed every 3 or 4 months, a timeframe not appropriate to the level of identified risk. Additionally, the service had failed to fully assess people’s health needs and dedicated care plans were not in place. This included for diagnosed health conditions such as diabetes or dementia despite the service specialising in providing care to people living with this condition . However, we found that staff knew people’s needs well although the service needed to make improvements in relation to the records associated with people’s needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Whilst nationally recognised risk assessing tools were used, these had not always been used appropriately. For example, despite some people’s Waterlow score ( a tool for determining the risk level of developing pressure ulcers) showing they were at very high risk, regular assessments had not taken place as determined by the risk level. Relatives told us that whilst they had not taken part in formal reviews of care for their family members, they nevertheless felt involved in their care and support and that the service was good at communicating with them. We saw that people’s hydration and nutritional needs were met and where people required a specialist diet, for example to reduce the risk of choking, this was delivered.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The records we viewed and the feedback we received told us this. For example, we received feedback from 5 health and social care professionals who all confirmed the service worked well with them to ensure continuity of care for people. A professional said, “I have found all the staff to be very knowledgeable and informed about people’s individual needs, and always well prepared with any relevant information regarding my visit.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Whilst there were some shortfalls in how the service supported people’s wellbeing needs in relation to activities and accessing the local community, the service supported people to access support for their physical needs. We saw that people had access to health professionals as required and that health professional’s recommendations were followed.

The provider did not always monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve as some shortfalls, such as lack of timely reviews regarding risk for some people, were identified. These shortfalls did not consistently give people the opportunity to ensure they received positive outcomes at all times or meet both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider did not always respect people’s rights when delivering care and treatment. For example, whilst the service had assessed most people’s capacity to make decisions, they had failed to adhere to a decision made in a person’s best interests in relation to the administration of their medicines; this had placed them at risk of harm. However, where the service had assessed people’s capacity to make a decision, these were robust and demonstrated adherence to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (where people can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA) had been granted with conditions in place, these had been met by the service.