Sutherlands 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We identified a breach of regulation in relation to person centred care. The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They did not always work in partnership with people. As noted elsewhere in this report, people were not always treated with dignity and respect. People were not always actively involved in their care planning or involved in decisions about the service. However, we found people's rooms were personalised to their liking and people were able to bring their pets into the service from home.

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. Staff worked closely with health care professionals and records showed effective partnership working had taken place during reviews of people’s care. Staff accurately recorded information and shared with staff and relevant professionals such as the GP.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, there was no signage in the service to support people to orientate and find their way around. Also, the menu was in written format only with no pictorial menus in use for people who would benefit from this. Staff told us they used to do ‘show plates’ but due to time constraints this didn’t always happen, however we did observe show plates in use in the dining room during our first visit.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. At the time of our assessment we were told a recent survey had been sent to relatives and staff to provide feedback, however there were no previous surveys for us to review. There were no clear processes in place to gain feedback from people about the day to day running of the service, for example, in relation to food choices or activities planning. People we spoke with said they were not always informed or involved in any changes. One person said, “I’ve not attended a meeting or known about any.” However, a relative said, “There are meetings 2 or 3 times a year when things get discussed.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, care plans stated some people needed to see the dentist but had not done so. The manager told us the dentist no longer visited the service which made this difficult. Care plans had not considered if visiting a dentist in the community was a possibility and therefore people had not accessed dental care.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to encounter inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. There were no opportunities for people to go out of the service into the community unless they had family to go with. A staff member said, “There are a lot of people who would really benefit to get out and do something. No one does ask to go out, but I don’t think they get offered. A lot of people just stay here cooped up in their rooms.” A relative told us, “Sundays are very quiet as nothing goes on. The activities person comes in on a Saturday fortnightly so that breaks up that weekend, it would be nice if something could be done at weekends.” However, people and relatives were also complimentary about the arranged group activities. One person said, “[Activity co-ordinator] works so hard and puts different things on all the time. I go to the quizzes and other things. I often help out as other residents don’t want to or aren’t able to do so. We have people come in to entertain us. Play music or sing - which I really enjoy. I love listening to music and watch quite a lot of TV.”

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. For example, records showed where people had expressed their end of life wishes. Where people found these conversations distressing, records highlighted this and the provider discussed and sought information from people close to them.