The Grange 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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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 changes in people’s needs.

Relatives told us they and their family members had been encouraged to be involved in planning their family members’ care. One relative said, “They talked us through everything, from the support to what [family member] likes and what she doesn’t.” Another relative told us, “They did the care plan from all the information we gave them at the beginning.”

Relatives told us the activities coordinator had made the effort to understand their family members’ needs and designed activities to meet these. One relative said, “The activities are quite personalised. [Family member] likes drawing and [activities co-ordinator] encourages that.” Another relative told us, “I have spoken to [activities co-ordinator] about what [family member] likes and [activities co-ordinator] was really helpful. I told her [family member] loves baking, so they do that now. [Family member] has the recipe to read out for everyone, and then everyone joins in doing something. It’s very good.”

The home’s activities coordinator provided a programme of activities including baking, arts and crafts, massage, games, and quizzes. The activities coordinator also organised outings and events involving families.

People had opportunities to be involved in their local community. For example, staff supported people to visit a café at a local church each week. Some people’s relatives accompanied their family members. Another local church had a day centre, which some people attended.

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.

People’s care was well coordinated. People were supported to access health and social care services and had access to the information they needed about these.

Staff worked well with other professionals involved in people’s care, sharing information effectively and following any guidance developed by professionals about how people should be supported.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. for example, one person spoke English as a second language and their command of English had diminished due to their dementia. A list of phrases in the person’s first language had been created for staff to enable them to communicate with the person about their immediate needs, such as whether they were cold, hungry, thirsty, tired, or in pain.

Relatives told us the manager and staff communicated well with them and always kept them up to date about their family members’ health and wellbeing. One relative said, “[Deputy manager] often calls us with information. He is very good, very helpful.” Another relative told us, “They always phone me if there is anything at all, any problems or changes.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns and would feel comfortable doing so. Relatives said they had opportunities to give their views about the home and the care their family members received through feedback surveys and relatives’ meetings. One relative told us, “I’ve got a 4-page feedback form I need to fill in and return to them sitting at home right now. They also have relatives’ meetings.“

No formal complaints had been made about the service in the last 12 months and the manager was able to explain how they had responded to any concerns people had raised verbally, including the action taken to improve where necessary.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw evidence that the manager had worked closely with other professionals to ensure one person with complex needs had access to the support they required. The person’s care and support had been planned, delivered and reviewed through effective collaborative working between the home, the GP, the community mental health team, and the person’s social worker.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were empowered to give their views and understand their rights, including their rights to equality and their human rights. The manager was alert to discrimination and inequality and proactively sought ways to address any barriers affecting people’s experience of care.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics, and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including care they wished to receive towards the end of their lives. Relatives confirmed they had opportunities to be involved in discussions about their family member’s care and treatment should their health deteriorate.