Hazelbrook Christian 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.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person centred care.

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.

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 to respond to changes in their needs.

There were several instances where people hadn’t received personal care based on their individual choices. One person’s family had stated they wanted their family member to only receive personal care from female staff, however daily notes showed this was done by male staff on occasions. Another person, who lack capacity, had expressed a preference not to eat meat for religious reasons, however their food intake records showed this was provided to them on multiple occasions by staff.

We were unable to evidence whether people’s personal care was carried out consistently by staff. For instance, where care plans stated people they needed support from staff to clean their teeth twice a day, care records did not demonstrate this was being done. These examples placed people at risk of their needs not consistently being met.

Care plans did not consistently capture people’s own voice, views or preferences in a meaningful way. It was unclear whether people or their relatives, where appropriate, had been actively involved in creating or reviewing their care plans. When care plan reviews were completed each month, it only showed a member of staff being involved in any updates.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

As care plans and risk assessments were not always in place or reflective of people’s current needs, we could not be assured people received consistent care. Feedback from people was that they experienced delays in care due to long waiting times. One person said, “I have a catheter I have to ask them to deal with it. Sometimes I wait hours for the nurse to see to it. I don’t feel they deal with the catheter well.” Another person said, “I do get concerned when I am in the lounge and I see people calling out for the toilet but they do nothing for a long time.”

Some staff working at the home were regular, although there was also a heavy reliance on agency staff which meant people were not always receiving continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Our review of care plans identified communication care plans were not always reflective of people’s communication needs, for example, people’s requirements to wear glasses, or hearing aids.

Some relatives told us they had not been given an information pack about the home when people first moved in. This meant they may not have all the information they needed.

There was a complaints process in place. People said if they ever raised any concerns, things were addressed. For example, one person said they had asked for more fruit to be available and this had been provided for them.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raisecomplaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people indecisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Some people living at the home and relatives told us they weren’t always offered choices, particularly regarding food. They also said they did not feel involved with decisions about their care plan. One person said, “There is no choice at meal times. You either have the hot meal they provide or you get given some tiny sandwiches or a slice of cheese on toast. Tea time is just three small triangle sandwiches.” A relative said, “I am not aware of (person’s) care plan. I haven’t been involved in reviews.”

As referenced in other sections of the report, we found staff often signed people’s consent forms meaning there was not the opportunity to be involved in important decisions about their care.

There were systems in place to enable people to provide feedback about the care they received in the form of meetings and surveys. Although these had not always been held consistently, a schedule had been put in place for these to be held moving forwards, which was displayed on a notice board at the home.

Staff made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed whenthey needed it.

People were able to access the service and healthcare professionals when required, and there was evidence of referrals being made to external services. Staff were aware of people’s basic needs and supported access to appointments and treatment.

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 completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. Staff ensured peoples’ social and healthcare needs were fully considered and met.

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.

People had end of life care plans in place, although these were relatively brief and did not provide details about people’s end of life wishes or preferences for their care. Monthly care plan reviews were signed by staff and didn’t capture whether people were involved about important decisions at the end of their life.

Staff completed ‘Annual advanced care plan/end of life training’, although the training matrix showed some staff had not completed this since 2024.