Archived: Lower Bowshaw View 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the health and care needs of people, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We found people’s diverse health and care needs were not detailed in plans of care, which meant care was not joined-up, flexible and did not support people’s choice’s, which meant there was a lack of continuity. People were supported by a core team of staff who knew them well. However, the lack of detailed up to date care records for staff to follow and the use of agency staff, meant people’s needs may not be met, putting them at risk of harm.

Health care professionals and local authority staff told us care records were poor and did not reflect people’s current needs. The progress with reviewing and updating care records was slow and staff were still not including all people’s care needs. For example, end of life care plans were not in place.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People did not have effective communication care plans in place to ensure their needs were met. This meant staff did not always understand how to communicate with people, which meant people could get frustrated. We observed staff although kind and respectful did not always understand what people required. For example, we observed the meal time, no picture cards were available and no show plates were offered for people to be able to make decisions.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.