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 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 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 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.

We found that the provider lacked in providing opportunities for people to access the community. However, a person was supported to attend their weekly day service, which was important to them. We saw care plans which detailed people’s needs and captured people’s individual wishes, preferences and choices. Staff were familiar with people’s care plans and used this guidance to provide personalised care.

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.

We saw care plans evidenced healthcare professional’s visits and care plans being reviewed on the advice from healthcare professionals. A staff member told us, “I write them and they are reviewed every month, we ask people and their families about the plans.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information regarding the service and how to make a complaint, which was available in people’s rooms did not have the correct information regarding the nominated individual. The manager was proactive and corrected this during our inspection.

We observed no menus were available for people during mealtime; however, we observed people being offered choices for their meal.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to give feedback about the service. Relative and resident meeting minutes said that the leadership would try and arrange some trips out into the community, these had not been evidenced to have happened, however relatives said that there had been a commitment to make changes to the menus following being raised at the meeting.

The leadership team were accessible and had an open-door policy for people and relatives. A relative told us, “I email my concerns and they have been dealt with.” Another relative told us, “I’ve no complaints, if I did, I’d go to the manager.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, people were individually assessed and if they required equipment to enable them to sit out of bed and or used to promote their ability to leave their room they received this support. The equipment used was maintained safely to enable people to move around the home and be comfortable.

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 Inclusion. This meant staff had knowledge and understanding about how to support everyone to feel valued and respected, with equal access to opportunities.

People, relatives and staff did not raise concerns of any form of discrimination within 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. People and relatives were involved in end-of-life planning, which was reflected in people’s care plans. This included some people having made decisions about whether they wished to be resuscitated in the event their heart stopped. We saw Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) processes were in place; however, we found 1 person’s Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSpect) form which stated the person was not for resuscitation which had not been dated when completed and did not have the person’s address on it. When we raised this with the leadership team they actioned it promptly with the person’s GP.