Sibbertoft Manor 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 68 (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 generally placed people at the centre of their care and treatment. People were involved in decisions about their care and staff understood what was important to them. The provider worked closely with people and, where appropriate, their relatives or representatives to gather detailed, person-centred information about everyone. This helped staff understand what mattered to people and how they wanted to be supported. Staff showed good knowledge of people’s preferences, lifestyles, and daily routines, and they respected these in practice. They also demonstrated a clear understanding of the different experiences of people living with dementia and provided care in a way that was appropriate and responsive to individual needs. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in regular care plan reviews. People’s wishes and preferences were respected, and staff supported people in line with their choices. A person said, “They’re giving me the right food and now they bring it hot as they know I like it better.” A relative told us decisions about (relative’s) care was a “Collaborative process.” And said, “The home has championed us.”

The provider generally understood people's health and care needs and worked with others to ensure care was joined-up, flexible and supported continuity.People generally received care from a consistent group of staff, including regular staff covering shifts. This helped provide continuity of care and ensured staff had a good understanding of people's needs and how they wished to be supported. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people's day-to-day health needs and preferences. Handover processes were in place to share important information between shifts and support continuity of care. Most care records were up to date and contained clear information to guide staff. Records supported communication within the staff team and with healthcare professionals when needed. Staff worked with a range of healthcare professionals to help meet people's needs and support positive outcomes. People's care needs were generally reviewed, and changes were shared appropriately with staff and relevant professionals. This helped ensure people received coordinated care that reflected their needs and preferences. Overall, people received joined-up care from staff who knew them well, and systems were in place to support continuity, communication and partnership working.

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

The service took steps to make information accessible for people with different communication and sensory needs. Newsletters were produced every quarter in A3 format so that people with sight loss could read them independently. Meeting minutes were also provided in large print to support accessibility. People had access to assistive technology, including a system called Natural Reader, which converts written documents into speech. An electronic reader was also available to help people read personal items such as birthday and Christmas cards, supporting independence and privacy. Staff showed a good understanding of people’s individual communication needs and adapted their approach accordingly. Staff had also received training in General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which helped ensure information was shared appropriately and confidentially. A person told us, “I couldn’t see my personal information board because it is too small and too high, so I’ve just been given a laminated copy which is good because it’s large and clear.”

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 were involved in decisions about their care and support, and people and their relatives knew how to raise concerns. Most felt confident that any concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon. The provider had a clear complaints policy, and information on how to raise concerns or make a complaint was displayed on the noticeboard. This included signposting to external organisations, such as the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The provider actively sought feedback from people, relatives, and staff through regular surveys and questionnaires. The most recent survey included an analysis of the results. Where areas for improvement were identified, clear actions were put in place. Overall, the feedback received was positive.

Regular meetings were held each year with people using the service, relatives, and staff. Records showed that feedback from these meetings was listened to and acted upon. For example, changes were made to menus following discussions at residents’ meetings. All complaints and concerns were investigated, responded to, and reviewed to reduce the risk ofthem happening again. Learning from complaints was shared with staff to help improve practice. A relative told us, “The staff are very good at communicating. We always feel listened to.” Another person told us, “If I have a problem, I just have a few words with the one on duty and they react very quickly.

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

The service had clear emergency arrangements in place, both for individual people and for the home. This included emergency equipment, personalised emergency plans, and an on-call system that allowed staff to access support from senior staff at any time. People told us there were no barriers to accessing the care and support they needed. The home was fully accessible for people using walking aids or wheelchairs, including access to the garden. This supported people to move around freely and maintain their independence.

We saw people choosing where they wanted to spend their time, including quiet areas and shared communal spaces. Staff and managers understood people’s right to equal access to care and health support and respected people’s individual needs, abilities, and backgrounds.

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.

Staff had received training in equality, diversity, and human rights, and people told us they felt treated fairly and with respect. Care plans clearly reflected what mattered to each person, including their family connections, social life, cultural background, and spiritual needs.

Staff knew how to quickly access important information in medical emergencies, which helped ensure people received the right support at the right time. The provider was effective at involving people and, where appropriate, their relatives in planning and reviewing care. People and relatives who wanted to be involved felt listened to and able to share their views.

Two people shared access to their bedrooms through the same entrance. Although the people were not related, records showed they had been informed of and consented to this arrangement when they moved into the home. However, this arrangement did not fully support people’s privacy and dignity. The provider has agreed to review this model going forward to help ensure people experience the same level of dignity, privacy, and equity as others living in the service.

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.

Where people had advance decisions about their end-of-life care, these were clearly recorded in their care documentation so staff knew and could follow their wishes. Staff had received end-of-life care training. We observed staff supporting a person approaching the end of their life in a kind, caring, and compassionate way. Staff were attentive to the person’s needs and provided emotional support to their family, showing dignity and respect during a difficult time.