Currergate 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 changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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.
The service provided a range of meaningful activities both inside and outside the service, helping people to remain engaged. Care records were generally detailed and person-centred, giving staff clear information about people’s needs, preferences, and history. Minor contradictions were noted, but overall care plans were well written.
Named key workers and champions supported a consistent, person-centred approach to care and reinforced staff responsibilities. Most people and relatives told us they knew about their care plans and had been involved in creating them. One relative told us, “They involved me with decisions about [person’s] care” and another told us, “They asked us about [person’s] preferences and they know about their preferences on food as well.”
Observations during the visit showed kind, caring interactions from staff which reflected a person-centred approach.
 

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 and their relatives told us they felt they received the care and treatment they expected and paid for, and care was delivered by a consistent team who knew people’s needs well. A relative told us, “[Person] gets looked after very well, they are very personable. [Person] is clean and looked after and there are lots of friendly staff there. Another relative told us, “They always respond to my queries, and I can speak with the registered manager who knows [person] well and knows what’s going on.”
Feedback from external partners was also positive, confirming the service worked effectively with them to meet people’s needs and ensure appropriate care and treatment was provided.
 

The provider ensured information was accessible and tailored to individual needs.
The provider’s brochure was clear and easy to read, with versions available in braille or other languages. Policies and care plans could be provided in accessible formats as required, ensuring everyone could understand and engage with information about the service. Staff informed us they had guidance available and understood accessible information standards, and management demonstrated a proactive approach to meeting these requirements.
The service provided people with clear, personalised, and practical information to enable people to make informed choices. However, some relatives told us they had not seen their loved one’s care plans, but they did confirm they had been involved in creating and contributing to these.
 

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 provider held regular meetings for staff and residents to encourage open communication and involvement. Day and night staff meetings took place periodically and covered a wide range of topics, including company values, policy updates, wellbeing, and quality of care. Staff were asked open questions to share feedback, and issues raised, such as supplies and record-keeping, were acted on promptly.
Staff also reported “Communication is really good. We have handovers and regular meetings, and the registered manager even comes in over the weekend to check we are all ok and up to date.”
Nurse meetings occurred monthly and included clinical discussions, where concerns were raised freely, for example about repositioning and fluid monitoring. Actions were being taken to address these issues.
Resident meetings were held monthly and demonstrated good involvement, with people asked for feedback on areas such as nursing care, food, laundry, and activities. Suggestions were recorded and responded to, showing a commitment to listening to people and making improvements. Relatives told us, “The staff and management listen to us, and they have meetings with [person] and others in the home. They really do listen.”
 

The provider was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The provider demonstrated highly personalised and innovative approaches to ensure access for people with different needs, backgrounds, and protected characteristics. The layout and design of the new extension significantly supported inclusivity, with wider doors, large bedrooms, a lift capable of accommodating stretchers, an accessible bath, and a track hoist, ensuring people with mobility needs could move around safely and comfortably.
Technology was used innovatively to overcome communication barriers and improve access to information. Wi-Fi, smart TVs for cultural channels, hearing loops, subtitles, and specialist equipment such as eye gaze for people with motor neurone disease enabled people to access care, information, and entertainment independently. Tailored approaches to accessing information for each individual ensured people could engage with the service in line with their needs.
Staff used their skills and experience to meet individual needs, including speaking different languages to support communication with people from diverse backgrounds. People had call bells to summon assistance, and where these were not suitable, sensor mats and regular safety checks were used and implemented. All necessary equipment and adaptations were available to ensure people received care that met their individual needs and expectations. Emergency protocols were personalised, and staff confirmed they had guidance and support from nurses, clinical leads, the deputy, and the registered manager when required.
Overall, the service went beyond standard accessibility requirements, using innovative solutions, personalised approaches, and thoughtful design to maximise inclusivity and ensure equitable access for all people.
 

The service consistently supported equitable experiences and outcomes, enabling participation and engagement, and ensured people were treated fairly and without discrimination.
Care records included clear details about people’s religious and cultural needs, sexuality, and any protected characteristics. Reasonable adjustments were made to support equity in care and outcomes, such as providing additional mobility aids for people with physical disabilities.
Staff were proactive in overcoming language barriers for people from different ethnic backgrounds, speaking people’s preferred languages to ensure they received the same quality of care and positive experiences as others. People, relatives, and staff reported they had never experienced or witnessed discrimination within the service.
Practical steps were taken to support inclusion and enhance people’s experiences. Personalised seating arrangements during entertainment and activities enabled people to participate fully and comfortably. These approaches helped people remain engaged, make choices about how they took part, and experience care in a way that reflected their preferences and abilities.

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.
End-of-life care was well planned and supported. Care plans were in place for people approaching the end of life, and staff had received appropriate training to provide compassionate and safe care in this area. The service was accredited with the Gold Standards Framework (GSF), which guided practice and helped ensure coordinated, person-centred care in collaboration with other professionals and services.
The GSF supported proactive planning, enabling staff to anticipate needs, respect individual preferences, and respond promptly to changes in condition. People and their families benefited from clear communication, tailored support, and reassurance that care would be managed safely and respectfully.
The provider had received many compliments and expressions of gratitude from relatives for the care provided at the end of life. Comments included “I felt reassured [person] was in good hands,” and “There was always someone around for [person].” These demonstrated the positive impact of the service’s approach on people and families.
The environment was accommodating for people’s needs at the end of life and after, helping to preserve dignity and comfort, and providing privacy for people and their families. The service’s approach ensured people were supported to experience a dignified, compassionate end of life, reflecting their wishes and promoting positive outcomes.