Silverways 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 service 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 71 (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.

Permanent staff knew people well and told us of different ways they ensured the care was person centred. Comments included, “We provide person-centred care by respecting each resident's preferences, routines, and choices”, “I support residents by respecting their preferences, routines, and choices—for example, assisting them according to how they like their personal care done and encouraging independence where possible” and “To support people in a person-centred way, I always try to address them in their preferred way, let them choose their clothes wherever possible, and not assume what their food and drink choices are just because of what they've had previously, offer them the opportunities to participate in activities or respect their decision if they choose not to, knock before entering their room, respect their personal property, their right to privacy.”

While relatives and people were complimentary about the service, our inspection found people’s daily notes did not reflect the support was being provided for their assessed needs and risk assessments contained contradictory information. Therefore, the provider could not assured that staff who were not permanently employed at the service knew how to support people. This meant people were at risk of not having their needs consistently met.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined up and supported choice.

Staff worked with a wide range of health and social care professionals and services to ensure people’s care delivery was well co-ordinated. Care plans confirmed input from external professionals. This was accessible to staff.

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 described in people’s care plans. The service had an up-to-date policy on Accessible Information Standards and staff had GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) training.

The service could obtain documentation in a format tailored to individual’s needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives confirmed they knew how to make a complaint and felt they could approach the management. A relative told us, “Any concerns are discussed with the registered manager. We speak very regularly anyway and very few problems occur.”

The service held meetings for people using the service and their relatives and issued surveys to ensure they felt involved and that their views were sought, listened to and used to inform service improvements. The service had ‘you said, we did’ poster displayed, listing planned improvements such as ensuring phone calls could be answered after certain time of the day. This was being addressed during the inspection.

Records showed complaints received had been managed in line with the provider’s policy.

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

The premises were accessible and well maintained.

People were supported to access health and social care professionals. Staff understood people’s individual needs, their differences, and preferences. Staff told us they supported people to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. A staff member said, “I support people to maintain independence by encouraging them to do things for themselves if they can. I have requested adaptive cutlery so that they can still eat independently. I have assisted someone with setting up a mobile phone and laptop so they can keep in touch with friends and family.”

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 and relatives were asked for feedback and their contribution to care planning. People`s care plans included information about their culture, religion and belief, and lifestyle.

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 had plans in place, which detailed their preference for care at the end of life. Information regarding do not attempt resuscitation orders (DNACPR) were clearly documented and visible to staff.

All relevant documentation was stored on the electric system used by staff. This meant staff had instant access to people’s wishes.