Georgian House Nursing 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

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

This service scored 79 (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 were person centred to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. We observed care and support that was caring, friendly, responsive, and supportive.

The registered manager told us, “People have a keyworker, they work alongside the person to ensure all their needs are met and whilst this is all staffs job, it’s good to have named person to take things forward.”

Staff spoke about providing person centred care based on what was important to the person. A staff said, “We do person centred training and always work to be person centred, we have regular team meetings to discuss people we support and always talk in a person-centred way. You will see today if you observe we work person centred. People choose what they want to do when, choice of meals etc.”

A family member told us, “I think the staff here are wonderful. They are very caring, and it is very personalised. They know [person] individually and have got to know the family which gives us the confidence that [person] is well cared for here and is as happy as can be. I think that is all we can ask for.”

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.

We observed positive practice with staff responding to people’s need with kindness and compassion. Staff were courteous and patient with people, listening and respecting their personal choices, and were at eye level speaking warmly and respectfully with people.

The registered manager told us, “We currently work closely with the West London Ealing Community Care Partnership, accessing services such as Speech and Language Therapy (SALT), Tissue Viability, Specialist Palliative Care, Diabetes Clinics, and Dietitian, Enablement Team or falls clinic etc.” and provided examples of the referrals they had recently made for people.

Feedback from partners was positive about the information shared and how well the provider worked with them.

The provider had a partnership with Life Library, a software application (app) dedicated to saving stories, memories and interests for every care resident. Life library will be showcasing Georgian House on how well they have implemented the app.

The registered manager told us, “Our partnership with LifeLibrary has fostered meaningful engagement for residents and families. in recreational and social activities has significantly increased, promoting emotional wellbeing and family involvement. By working with families and those in care to discover and save precious memories on the secure LifeLibrary App, our carers can deepen connections with our residents.”

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

The registered manager gave us an example of how they met people’s individual communication needs. “A resident with severe dysphonia [Dysphonia is the term used to refer to disorders of the voice.]is supported with extra time to express themselves and involvement from family members who assist with communication.” They also explained that they understand that effective communication is central to delivering person-centred care.

Processes were in place to assess people’s communication needs before they joined the service. Care plans detailed people’s communication needs and was regularly reviewed.

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.

People and their relatives told us they understood the provider’s policy for making a complaint however they had never had a reason to complain. A relative told us, “I would not hesitate to speak to the manager if I was concerned about anything and would be confident it would be sorted out. However, I have so far not had cause to do so.”

The registered manager told us they had a system in place to investigate complaints. They gave examples of how they have investigated complaints, and the outcomes and improvements made. Complaints were discussed at team meetings as a way of learning ad improving.

The provider retrieved staff and people’s feedback regularly via staff and people’s surveys . Surveys were analysed for any trends. There was a verbal scanning system on the entrance to the home where family and visitors can feedback their views.

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

People were supported with medical appointments and routine, follow-up appointments. People told us they had access to health care professionals both inside and outside of the service. Comments included, “The doctor generally comes here once every week anyway. If needed, they do come on the spot or hospital staff would come when necessary.” Another comment was, “If I feel unwell, they get the doctor in for me. It is not a bad place this” and “I think if [relative] needs help, they would be onto it pretty quickly. If [relative] needed a GP like when they had pain in their legs, they were here pretty quickly.”
There were processes in place to ensure that people could receive care, support and treatment when they needed it. The mental health nurse visited the service weekly to support a person. Staff had a confident working relationship with all the health care professionals who visited the service.

Health care professionals told us staff at the service were good at escalating concerns in health deterioration or changes in someone’s medical condition to ensure that timely action was taken.

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 did not face discrimination within the service. People’s care records guided staff on how to support them in accordance with their wishes, abilities and protected characteristics. Staff respected people’s preferences.

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 and their relatives were involved with discussions about their future care and details of preferences were included in care plans.