Nightingale Court Care 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 key question has been rated 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 relevant changes in people’s needs.

Relatives told us staff understood people’s needs and care was person-centred. For example, 1 relative said, “They [staff] are so attentive to my relative. They know what my relative likes and cares for them very, very well.” Another told us, “The carers have recognised that my relative needs to be occupied and I certainly think that this is the best place for my relative as there’s always activities happening.”

The provider matched people and keyworkers to promote positive outcomes. For example, matching a person and keyworker from the same country which supported effective communication and a positive relationship.

Areas of care plans contained very detailed and personalised information, whilst others required more detail. The registered manager told us of their plans to make the necessary improvements to ensure consistency.

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 experienced continuity of care, which was embedded into the home because there was a consistent staff team who knew people well. A keyworker system and ‘resident of the day’ was in place, for staff to have enhanced focus on people’s needs and outcomes, ensuring they were regularly reviewed and updated.

Staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. For example, staff collaborated with social workers, occupational therapists, and GP’s to support people living at the service.

People and those important to them told us they felt confident they were receiving the care and support they needed from a staff team who knew them well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider followed the Accessible Information Standard, which tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss get information in a way they can understand. It also says people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

Assessments identified people's communication needs. Care plans highlighted and addressed these, explaining communication needs clearly. Staff provided the support required, and information was provided in formats people understood. Examples included visually showing people a choice of meals, using pictures to aid with personal care and using apps to translate from another language.

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.

The provider had a complaints policy. Complaints we reviewed showed the provider had responded in line with their policy, detailing any changes that had been implemented as a result of the concern. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint and felt confident to do so.

People and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback at any time. They said they regularly spoke with the registered manager who was approachable, listened and acted on any issues raised if need be.

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

Staff ensured that timely referrals were made for specialist support, while people could regularly access local health support when they required it.

The provider recognised it was not always easy for some of the people living in the home to attend outside appointments for services such as dentists, opticians and chiropodists and had arranged for home visits. There was also a weekly ‘ward round’ where the GP attended the home. For those who wished to use services externally, staff supported them to do so. For example, the registered manager told us it was very important for 1 person to visit the barber, so they helped them with this.

We heard of examples where the registered manager had ensured people received equity in accessing services. For example, ensuring they were received a face-to-face GP appointment rather than a diagnosis over the phone.

People could call for help from staff using call bells which were answered promptly. Staff knew some people were unable to use a call bell, and staff told us they frequently checked on them. Records confirmed this.

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.

The service advocated for people to receive the care and treatment they needed. The registered manager described a situation where they championed the person’s right to treatment, which had initially been declined due to their age and diagnosis. One relative told us, “I have found that the manager is fierce when it comes to taking care of her residents.”

Relatives shared examples where staff had responded to concerns and sought medical attention when required.

Training records showed staff completed equality and diversity training and all staff said people were treated fairly.

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.

Staff supported people and their relatives to express their wishes in relation to end of life care preferences. Care plans evidenced end of life care plans which included information on people’s individual wishes, for those who did not wish to discuss this, their decision was respected.

We reviewed the records of a person who had recently received end of life care and found they had been supported to have a pain free and dignified death. Equipment and medication had been sought in a timely manner. External health professionals were also involved in people's end of life care when needed.

We saw thank you cards expressing gratitude for the compassionate care provided to people and their relatives at the end of life.