Brisen Company Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At the last inspection we found care plans were not always person-centred. Despite some improvements, further improvements were needed to ensure care plans were person-centred. In addition to the lack of information about how medical conditions affected people we found personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) contained inaccurate information about people’s ability to evacuate their home. The PEEPs also contained information about people’s personal care needs and the registered manager could not explain why this was included in the evacuation plans. We discussed this with the registered manager and hey have reviewed people’s PEEPs after we gave feedback. Despite our concerns with the accuracy of care plans people told us they had been consulted about their needs and preferences and they felt they had a care plan that met their needs. Comments included, “I signed my care plan off this last weekend.” People also told us they could choose which staff supported them. One person told us, “Yes, I can choose whether I want a man or a woman.” Staff had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs, which was confirmed by people and their relatives. Staff were confident the care plans were person-centred. One member of staff told us, “Clients have access to the care plan so they are in charge of what is written. This ensures it is accurate and reflects their personal preferences.”

The provider understood the need to work in partnership with other health and social professionals so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was a process in place for making referrals to other services to support people's needs. We saw evidence of this. People also told us they were supported by regular staff. Comments included, “There are about four different people that come on a regular basis and I am happy with the four” and “We have worked so long together so we have a routine.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to people’s individual needs. People told us the provider ensured they had all the information they needed about their service. One person told us, “Yes, I have a folder about it and I can always contact the manager.” People’s communication needs were assessed and staff were aware of people’s communication styles and preferences. They provided us with examples of how they communicated with people and how they tailored their communication style to suit people’s needs, situations and disposition.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People told us they knew how to raise concerns about their care and they were satisfied the provider took the right action when they did. Comments included, “If I ring them if I have a concern they will always sort it out” and “I wanted a staff changed but this was changed straight away.” There were process in place to gain feedback from people. The registered manager made regular visits and calls to people to gather their feedback about the care they received.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us they had not experienced any discrimination or difficulties accessing the services they needed.

People were supported by a small staff team who knew them well and ensured their care was personalised to their individual needs. This enabled people to communicate their wishes and preferences to ensure equity in experiences and outcomes. Care plans listed people’s protected characteristics, culture and religion. However, the information was often too vague to ensure staff understood how people’s religion or culture affected their daily lives . For example one person’s care plan stated they would like food and drinks to be given in line with their religious and cultural beliefs” but there was no other information to help staff understand what this means in practice. Without any additional information staff may not understand how to meet the person’s religious and cultural needs.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People did not require any support with end-of-life care at the time of our assessment. However, people and people important to them had been asked about their end-of-life wishes and these were recorded. The provider was also recording whether people had any ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) directions in place. However, this had not been answered for one person so there was a risk staff would not know the person’s wishes in the event of a medical emergency. We discussed this with the registered manager who has agreed to update the person’s care plan with their preferences around resuscitation.