Braywood Gardens

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We assessed all quality statements in the caring key question. We found people did not always receive kind and caring support. This was a breach of regulation related to dignity and respect. There was not enough staff at the service. This meant people did not always receive timely support to meet their needs. People felt that routines around the home were focused on staff availability, rather than meeting people’s preferences. We saw staff were rushed in their interactions, as they were not able to spend prolonged periods of time with people. People felt that not enough activities were offered, and those activities that were offered were not what they would choose. We saw people sat for long periods without any meaningful activity. The staff assigned to activities were not working on the day of the inspection, however no other arrangements had been made to provide people with meaningful activity. Relatives and friends were free to visit people.

This service scored 30 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not supported to go to the toilet in a dignified way. A person told us that they were able to use the toilet, however as staff were slow to support, they sometimes had to use an incontinence pad. The person said, “they pad us because it suits them and is less work.” Another person described that they had complained to staff about them not coming quickly. They added, “The staff member said just wee and poo in your pad. I asked if I was supposed to lie in that until the morning and they agreed I would. They either aren’t trained or don’t care.”

All staff told us that they felt that people were treated with kindness and any concerns would be raised to the senior leadership team. While staff fed this back, we did not observe that staff were always kind. This is because interactions were rushed and staff did not have time to spend with people.

Before the assessment, we had received concerns from stakeholders that care was not always provided in a kind and dignified way. During the assessment, external professionals continued to express concerns about the poor-quality care that people had been provided with.

We saw people were often shouting for staff support. Staff either walked past and did not offer support or were rushed in their interaction. Support that was offered was often task focused (in order to get something done), rather than being a caring interaction. One person said, “I just want someone to give me a kind word - it’s so degrading to ask someone to take you to the toilet.” Communal areas (like lounges) did not always have staff in them. We therefore saw people left in distress, as no staff were around to notice and offer support. When we saw communal areas that did have staff in, staff were completing documentation, talking to other staff, or making drinks. This meant that the people in these areas were not receiving staff interaction unless they asked for support.

People felt they did not have enough choice in their routines. For example, multiple people expressed concerns that they were not always able to choose which gender carer supported them. One person said “I wasn’t asked and tend to get both (genders) and put up with it. I’d rather not have men washing me down below though.”

We received varied staff feedback about treating people as individuals. One staff member expressed concern that poor communication between staff meant a person’s dietary preferences had not always been accounted for. Another staff member explained that people’s diversity was well supported. They said, “Everyone is celebrated. So Muslims, to Christians to vegetarians. Management always announce celebrations coming up. So everyone is aware.” Due to our concerns about staffing levels at the home, we were not assured that there would be sufficient staff to support people’s diverse needs effectively. (see staffing section of this report).

We did not always see that people were treated as individuals. This is because staff were seen rushing to provide care to people, so others were then left without support. Staff told us that they know which people press the call bells a lot due to their dementia. So, they do not rush to see these people when the bell is used or if the person is shouting. We saw these people remained in a state of distress as their call bells and anxiety were not responded to quickly.

Care plans did not give enough details on how people would like to be supported. For example, what gender carer they preferred or what time they liked to complete their routines. The staff team did not always work with the same people. It is therefore important that staff can read care plan documents to understand people’s preferences.

People explained that they were not always given choice in their routines. For example, multiple people told us that they would enjoy a bath. However, they were not given the option and instead had a shower. They also felt these showers were rushed. People felt these restricted bathing options were due to low staffing levels in the care home. People felt they were not provided with good quality activities. People said there were not enough activities, so they would read or watch TV. People explained that the activities on offer were not activities that they would normally choose. One person said, “They (staff) put a film on for us at weekends. But it’s usually like some old Laurel and Hardy and people just fall asleep. What’s wrong with a musical or western?”. Another person said, “Its usually simple painting or bingo - not my thing.”. There was limited evidence in people’s care plans that personal activity preferences had been discussed. While people were not provided with meaningful activity, we saw relatives and friends were welcomed into the care home to visit people.

Staff explained that they could check people’s care plans, to understand their preferences. However, we saw that care planning documents did not include enough information to guide staff.

We observed that staff were often focused on the routines in the care home. For example, staff helped people move from communal areas into their bedrooms. However, people were not given an option on where they would like to spend their time. So, this movement of people was not person centred. We saw that there was a lack of activities offered within the care home. This meant people sat for long periods without a meaningful activity. The registered manager advised that the staff responsible for activities were not available due to attending training on the day of our assessment. However, during the day we heard staff communicate that they were unaware these staff were not working. No other arrangements were made to ensure people has meaningful activity whilst the activity staff were out of work.

Care plans did not give clear guidance on people’s preferences and routines. For example, people had reported that they would prefer a certain gender carer, or baths instead of showers. These preferences were not in people’s care plans for staff to follow.

People felt their immediate needs were not responded to in a timely way. We saw people were distressed that staff were not responding to their calls for support.

Staff told us that staffing levels could impact the amount of support they could give to people. This can result in rushed and none-caring support.

Throughout the visit to Braywood Gardens, we saw people’s immediate needs were not responded to. This was due to the lack of staff available to support people (see staffing section for more details).

We found staff well being was not always high. Some staff felt well supported. However, one staff member felt concerns could be ‘brushed under the carpet’. Another staff member felt there was no management compassion towards the staff team. They said, “I feel like a number and it shouldn’t be like that.”

Staff were given opportunities to have supervision. This one to one process allows a meeting with the senior staff to discuss their wellbeing. While this was available, staff explained that they did not always feel able to speak to management about their concerns.