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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans did not always reflect people's individual needs and preferences or suggest ways which ensured their preferences and needs were met. Although staff were kind in their interactions with people, they were task focused, which meant people did not always receive personalised care. One person said, “I like to stay in my room mostly and listen to talking books because I can’t see well, I prefer to be quiet.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Visiting professionals had raised concerns regarding staff not following up on issues after people had been discharged from hospital. The management team had taken action to address these concerns and had implemented an hospital discharge policy. However, this policy needed embedding in to practice.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People did not always have effective communication care plans in place to support staff in understanding how best to communicate with them. For example, we observed staff offering guidance to someone about how to stand up, but this was not in line with best practice. Since our last inspection we found the service had implemented picture menus to assist people to choose their meals.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. On the first day of our assessment, we found no complaints procedure was displayed or referred to throughout the home. This reduced options for people and visitors to understand how to raise a concern and what to expect. We raised this with the manager who took action to ensure the complaints procedure was available for everyone. Staff and relatives had been asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their feedback about the home and their experiences. The management team had planned to review this feedback when they had received replies. The management team had also placed a suggestion box in the main entrance area for more feedback and suggestions.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We found there had been delays in accessing external professionals such as the dentist and opticians. More timely action would have meant people’s quality of life would have improved. People told us they got care and support from external professionals to meet their needs. Several people told us they had podiatry regularly and had access to the GP and district nursing services. One person said, “I get regular pacemaker check-ups. I also had a mastectomy last year. I have had breast cancer for years, but it changed last year, and they sorted it. I also have bone infusions once a year. They are very good with all that.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Professionals told us people did not receive a seamless service and sometimes their needs were not met. Partners did not feel the service worked well to improve the lives and experience for people living at the home.

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. We found some care plans in place regarding end-of-life care which were detailed with clear involvement from people and their family members. However, not all end-of-life care plans had been completed to the same detail. The management team were in the process of addressing this.