Inglefield Nursing & Residential 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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People were supported to make choices, maintain independence, and take part in activities. Some relatives reported delays in access and communication during busy periods; however, staff generally responded appropriately to people’s needs and concerns.

This service scored 75 (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 ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Staff worked in partnership with people to respond to any changes in needs, ensuring care remained personalised and flexible.

People had person-centred care plans containing individualised information. Plans reflected preferences and described how people wanted their care delivered. While some plans contained conflicting information, staff demonstrated thorough knowledge of people and consistently provided care in line with individual preferences.

Staff had positive, meaningful interactions with people. Our observations during the inspection showed staff understood how best to support each person and responded appropriately to their needs. A person said, “They’ve started a new scheme… one person goes round in the morning to see how you are,” and another person commented, “It is as near as home as you can get in somewhere that is not your home,” reflecting responsive, personalised care.

Relatives confirmed people were treated as individuals and all agreed that support met people’s preferences.

The provider ensured care was joined-up, flexible, and supported continuity and choice. Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, enabling care to be delivered in a way that met individual requirements.

Processes supported coordination and monitoring of care. Eligibility and funding arrangements were assessed, and reviews ensured delivered care hours met people’s needs. Communication with people, relatives, local authorities, and integrated care boards (ICBs) helped manage changes to care or funding requests effectively.

Staffing arrangements promoted continuity. Rotas showed that agency staff had not been used, supporting consistent relationships between staff and people. This continuity helped maintain familiarity and trust in care delivery.

People and relatives confirmed continuity and integration of care. A relative said, “They are always very pleasant… she knows them all by name,” reflecting the positive impact of stable staffing and well-coordinated support. Care was responsive, personalised, and integrated across teams and services.

The provider did not always supply information in formats that fully met people’s individual needs. Although systems were in place, these were not always effective in ensuring information was accessible for everyone. For example, while information such as activity planners and menus was available, some materials were not presented in ways that supported understanding or engagement for all people. This limited some people’s ability to fully understand information and make informed choices about their daily activities.

Despite these shortfalls, the service provided most information in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). For example, newsletters were produced in large print for people with visual impairments, and user guides clearly explained the service, including terms and conditions. Policies and procedures guided staff to meet communication needs, and staff received training on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and accessible communication. However, these arrangements were not always applied consistently to reflect individual needs.

Staff used personalised communication strategies to support engagement where these had been identified. For example, a non-verbal person used communication cards, which staff understood and used to support interaction. While this demonstrated good practice, it was not evident that all people who required adapted information were consistently supported in this way. This meant opportunities to promote choice, involvement, and independence were not always fully maximised.

The registered manager acknowledged these gaps and told us that improvements, such as the use of photographs or easy-read formats, were being implemented to support engagement and understanding.

The provider actively listened to people and involved them in decisions about their care and the running of the service. Staff ensured people were informed about changes and improvements resulting from their feedback. Complaints were recorded, investigated, and addressed promptly, with lessons learnt applied to prevent recurrence.

People and relatives had opportunities to share their views. Regular meetings for people using the service and their relatives provided a forum to influence how the service operated. Annual surveys gathered feedback, showing overall satisfaction and confidence in staff responsiveness.

Records demonstrated that feedback informed improvements. Staff acted on complaints and concerns in a timely and proportionate manner. For example, when 1 person wandered into another’s room, staff moved the person to a more suitable space, ensuring safety and comfort for both people.

People confirmed their voices were heard. A person said, “We have a resident’s meeting every month,” and another commented, “You can go to the manager and tell her whatever, and she does something about it.” A third person said, “I can raise any concerns.” Relatives also highlighted prompt action when needed, reflecting a culture that values feedback and responds effectively.

The provider ensured people could access care, support, and treatment when they needed it. The service was fully accessible, allowing people of all mobility levels to reach communal and personal areas. Staff provided flexible support for hospital appointments, admissions, and discharges outside normal hours, maintaining continuity of care.

Staff demonstrated flexibility to meet individual needs. People received assistance to attend medical appointments and access healthcare in a timely way. Staff adapted support to ensure people’s choices and preferences were respected during these interactions.

People occasionally experienced short waits when returning to the home, and some relatives mentioned delays when the doorbell was not answered immediately. These instances were infrequent and did not result in people missing appointments or being unable to access care. The management team was aware of this feedback and was exploring practical solutions to improve response times.

People confirmed that access to healthcare was effective. One person told us, “They take you to the hospital… a nurse goes with me every time,” and another said, “I am able to see the doctor when I need to.” A relative commented, “The staff there take her to outpatient appointments.” Overall, people were supported to access healthcare in an equitable and timely way.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Care, support, and treatment were tailored to meet individual needs and preferences, ensuring equitable experiences for all people. People were supported to attend religious services, including Holy Communion and church, in line with their faith.

The service promoted access to healthcare and specialist support. People were referred to appropriate healthcare professionals, including audiology, eye testing, and the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team. Staff ensured adjustments were made to accommodate people’s protected characteristics and individual needs.

Reasonable adjustments supported engagement and independence. For example, a person with sight impairment had access to Braille books and copies of the Radio Times in Braille, enabling them to maintain their interests and daily routines. Care plans reflected these adjustments, demonstrating consideration of individual needs and equity in care provision.

People and staff confirmed equitable experiences in practice. One person said, “They respect you if you have a faith. Everybody’s wishes are respected.” A staff member described creating a personalised Braille Christmas card for a person, including their name in Braille and a raised Christmas tree. These examples showed the service actively promoted positive, equitable outcomes for people.

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, enabling them to make informed decisions about their future, including end-of-life care.

Care plans were detailed, person-centred, and developed collaboratively with people and their relatives, reflecting individual wishes and preferences. Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to advance care planning, which was embedded in the culture of the home, ensuring people’s choices were consistently understood and respected.

The service fostered strong partnerships with external agencies and community groups. Collaborations with cancer support services, dementia choirs, and local transport services enhanced social engagement, maintained support networks, and ensured people’s needs were anticipated and met holistically.

Thoughtful attention was given to comfort, sensory needs, and personalised initiatives. Measures included comfort boxes, refreshment trays, soft blankets, lighting adjustments, and flexible staffing arrangements. Volunteers provided companionship when family were unavailable.

A distinctive initiative involved creating heart-shaped cushions from people’s clothing at the end of life, gifted to families as lasting mementos, exemplifying the service’s compassionate and innovative approach.

Post-death care supported reflection and remembrance. The service maintained an indoor memorial garden and memory book, providing dedicated spaces for staff, people, and relatives. Families spoke positively about the support received. A relative described the care of their loved one at the end of their life as “a very stable train that was holding us, and all we needed to do was turn up. Everything was taken care of”.

People’s end-of-life wishes were consistently respected, and personalised, compassionate support was available for both people and their families, demonstrating outstanding practice in planning for the future.