Alt Park 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 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.

At the last assessment, the provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to good governance. At this assessment, not enough improvement had been made,and the service remained in breach of the legal regulations in relation to good governance.

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. Care records did not always evidence people were involved in day-to-day care decision such as choosing what clothes to wear and choosing their meals. People and relatives feedback confirmed this. Comments included, “I just get what I am given” and “Not offered a choice of meals, but always tea and biscuits on offer.”

We found some care plans were person centred and contained detailed information regarding people's preferences and likes and dislikes. However, we found some care plans lacked person-centred detail for example, behavioural care plans were not sufficiently detailed to guide staff on how to effectively manage periods of emotional distress. This meant there was a risk people would not be cared for in the way they needed or preferred.

Care provision, integration and continuity required improvement. Staff did not always work effectively together with external health professionals. For example, when people presented with worsening symptoms which suggested current treatment plans were ineffective, we found this information was not always shared, leading to gaps in continuity and delays in meeting people’s needs.

The provider did not always supply information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information displayed in the home and individual care plans were not tailored to meet people’s preferred communication needs. For example, people whose first language was not English did not always have access to information in a translated format. The failure to ensure information was accessible to all increased the risk of unmet needs and inconsistent care.

The provider did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Care plan reviews did not always evidence people and where applicable, their significant others were involved in these reviews.

The registered manager had recognised further improvement was needed to ensure people were involved in their care decisions. We saw action plans were in place to ensure people were involved in reviews and we found surveys had been sent to relatives to gather their feedback. During the first day of the assessment, we saw the registered manager chair a meeting with people’s relatives.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. While we saw examples where people were supported to access relevant external services, we found people did not always receive medical reviews when they were needed. Further improvement was needed to ensure people’s ongoing health conditions were monitored and the appropriate action was taken to ensure timely treatment was obtained when symptoms deteriorated.

We saw evidence of joined up working with specialist teams, such as specialist diabetes teams in relation to concerns with a person’s dietary intake and commissioning partners to increase the support needed to keep people safe from falls.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.Care plans and risk assessment did not always include the essential detail required to meet people’s needs. For example, where people required one to one support for their safety, we found care plans were not holistic and did not guide staff undertaking one to one care on how to meet all needs such as social needs. This increased the risk of people’s outcomes not being consistently met and their quality of life negatively impacted.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could haveenough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.While we saw people’s end of life care needs were recorded, information was basic and there was a lack of meaningful involvement of people and their relatives. Further improvement was required to ensure care planning records fully reflected people’s wishes.