Patcham 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 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 contained detailed information about people’s needs and wishes, and staff demonstrated a good knowledge of this. Where possible, a robust life history had been gathered and documented, and care plans were shaped around people’s likes and dislikes. People were regularly involved in reviews of their care to ensure it remained in line with their preferences. One person told us, “[Staff] know what I like and what I don’t like, they respect my wishes.” A relative said, “The staff are exceptional, consistently going above and beyond to ensure [person] is comfortable, and all their needs are met.” Some people enjoyed going to a tearoom in the past however were no longer able to do this. Therefore, a space within the home had been made into a tearoom with personalised crockery which people had painted themselves.

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 were supported to access external agencies should they be required to ensure people's care and treatment needs could be assessed and met. Care documents showed that people’s care was planned and delivered with continuity, inclusion and a holistic approach to people’s needs. This included, how people were supported after an admission to hospital. We received positive feedback from visiting professionals who all told us that staff at the home were responsive and followed any guidance offered by them.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were assessed and documented within their care plans. Where people needed additional or specific support, this was provided. For example, one person required staff to speak clearly and within sight to enable lip reading. We saw staff following this guidance appropriately.

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 held regular meetings with both staff and people and their relatives. People told us they felt able to raise any concerns or make any suggestions if they wanted a change to happen. We saw that changes people had requested had been implemented, for example, someone had asked for a specific drink to be available and this was honoured. One relative told us, “I have access to the complaints policy and feel confident that if I did raise a concern, I would be taken seriously, as the management is both approachable and responsive.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People's care records showed they had access to care, support and referrals were made for treatment when they needed it. We received positive feedback from external professionals about the timeliness of referrals made to them. Care records included information around people's communication needs and where people needed additional support, this was provided.

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’s care plans included details of any protected characteristics and matters which were important to them. Care was tailored to meet any specific needs. Staff had completed equality and diversity training, and there was a clear ethos within the home to challenge any barriers regarding access to care.

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. Any wishes people had expressed were clearly documented in their care plans. Where appropriate, people had ‘Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment’ (ReSPECT) forms and/or ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) forms immediately clear in their care folders. These contained personalised details of the wishes people had articulated previously.