Neville House Residential Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected people’s needs, preferences, and choices. Staff completed daily care records for people, which demonstrated staff were meeting people's individual needs in line with their care plan.

People and their relatives told us they felt listened to and involved in decision making. Staff knew people well and adapted support to reflect people's needs and preferences. One relative told us, “It is centred around what she needs. When she has been distressed, [staff] are so patient with her and the other residents.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received care and support from a consistent team of staff who knew them well. Staff worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure people received a coordinated approach from all services involved in their care.

The provider had systems in place to ensure continuity of care. When people’s needs changed, care plans were reviewed and updated, and staff were informed of changes to support consistent and coordinated care delivery.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider understood their responsibility to make sure people received information in a way they could understand. Staff adapted the way they communicated with people to meet their needs by using clear language and reassurance, or other communication aids where required.

Care plans detailed what support people required with communication where necessary, such as ensuring a person had access to their hearing aid, for example.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The registered manager created a positive, caring environment where people felt listened to and supported. People and their relatives told us they had not needed to make a complaint, but they felt comfortable talking to staff or the registered manager if they had any concerns.

People, staff and relatives were encouraged to share feedback and ideas about how to improve the service. The service held regular resident and relative meetings and used surveys to gather people’s feedback. An action plan was created from the feedback to address any areas that needed improvement.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff had appropriate access to support in emergencies that happened out of hours. The provider had clear procedures in place for emergencies and unexpected events which told staff what to do and who to contact in different situations.

The service worked well with the GP, district nurses and other healthcare professionals. Staff understood people's needs and were responsive to any changes to ensure people received timely care and treatment.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care, helping to make sure their individual needs were met. Independent advocates were offered and provided where people did not have family support, making sure everyone received fair and appropriate care.

The provider had an equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place which provided guidance on the importance of treating people as individuals. The registered manager valued equality and diversity and was proud that staff had received training to help them understand and respect people’s differences.

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.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of end-of-life care and the importance of involving people and their families in planning decisions. The provider had accessed an end-of-life care training accreditation, which staff had completed.

People were supported to remain at the service at the end of their lives if they wanted to. Relatives were able and encouraged to spend as much time as possible with their loved ones. The registered manager told us how they had previously supported a person’s family to stay overnight at the service during the final days of their loved one’s life.

End-of-life care plans were not always person-centred. The registered manager told us that advance care plans and discussions about a person’s last wishes took place when their health started to deteriorate. However, this meant staff did not always have enough information about what someone would want if they died unexpectedly.