Archived: Southlands 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 remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider’s processes to ensure people received person centred care were not always effective. From our review of people's care records, we found some that were brief and lacked relevant person-centred information about their preferences. For example, there was a lack of information in some peoples’ care records in relation to past histories, interests, hobbies, what people could and couldn’t do for themselves to maintain a level of independence within their capabilities and how they would like to receive care.

The provider failed to ensure effective systems and processes were in place to ensure people's care records remained up to date. For example, a care plan audit that had been completed for a person in June and July 2025 identified the same issues in relation to a change required to a risk assessment as this was not up to date or accurate. We reviewed this person's risk assessment in August 2025 and identified that this remained inaccurate and had not been updated. Audits of care plans had not generated sufficient improvement. These had not identified the conflicting and contradictory information as well as the lack of person-centred detail.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives in relation to care plans and their involvement, comments included, "There is a care plan, but I haven’t read it", "I wasn’t involved in writing it", "I haven't seen it. They did it when I first came in", "I don't think so" and "They went through it all with us".

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 evidence that people were supported to access relevant healthcare professionals that they needed, when they needed it.

Records documented the advice given from other professionals which had also been included in people’s care plans.

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

We did not observe the use of any tools to support people living with dementia to independently make choices such as display plates or pictures. This meant people were not supported to maintain their independence of choice through other methods such as visuals where they had an impairment that may impact their ability to effectively communicate their choices.

The management told us of a person they support whose medical condition affected their ability to communicate verbally; however, they were able to answer questions through eye movement or leg reactions. We reviewed the care plan for this person which detailed this method of communication.

People’s communication needs were recorded with information about how staff could communicate with them. This included information on any equipment used to improve communication, glasses and hearing aids for example.

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.

People and relatives that we spoke with, confirmed that residents’ and relatives’ meetings were arranged for them to attend. We reviewed the minutes of a meeting that took place in August 2025 that demonstrated people were given the opportunity to speak up.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives, comments included, “I don’t feel listened to by the [manager]. I heard [manager] was brought here to turn the place around and [manager] hasn’t done it”, “I can’t get to the meetings, but they said, any suggestions, put them in writing. I brought up the staffing levels and the [manager] said that was being looked at. The other 2 issues I brought up, [manager] didn’t speak about”, “I go every month. [Manager] says what you want to hear. What you want, never happens”, [Manager] doesn’t listen. You bring up issues and [manager] just answers a question with a question” and “I’ve been to one. It was very good; people said what they wanted”.

People were provided with written information about the service and how to complain should the need arise via the service user guide. The electronic visitor recording system provided the opportunity for visitors to comment or raise concerns as they were leaving the building.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured that people who had a disability which impacted their ability to contact health services or access health, care or wellbeing support outside of the home, or into the home if they were unable to leave, were supported to have equitable access to relevant healthcare professionals.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

From our observation and from review of peoples records we identified that people who were less able to advocate for themselves were not always experiencing good care. For example, people who were living with dementia and were unable to actively summons assistance when they needed were more likely to experience delayed responses in meeting their needs. This further increased the risks of social isolation.

The provider had not considered or implemented all relevant best practice guidance for dementia friendly care environments, including ensuring all peoples bedroom doors had clear and personalised signage, that signage was accessible and that information displayed at the service was clear to support people to orientate around the environment.

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.

Records confirmed people were supported to plan for the end of their life. Information about people’s wishes in relation to where they would like to receive their end-of-life care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions were clearly recorded.