Gracefields 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 relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were supported to be at the centre of their care, and staff tried to make sure people could make choices about their daily lives. People were encouraged to join in with activities if they wanted to, and their decisions were respected. Some people who preferred to stay in their rooms, one person told us, “I have everything I want here”.

People gave mixed feedback about their care plans. Some said their plans were reviewed often, while others were unsure or said they were not involved. The care plans we looked at had been updated recently, but some relatives told us they were not always included in reviews. The manager explained that they try to involve people and families by asking for feedback, talking with them, and observing people who cannot share their views themselves. Staff worked with people to understand their needs and preferences, and care plans were updated to reflect any changes. This helped make sure care was personal and matched what people wanted and needed.

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.

The service worked well with other professionals, and communication between teams was clear and consistent. All staff had completed dementia care training, and some had also undertaken dementia interpreter training, helping them better understand and support people living with dementia.

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

The service offered a comfort menu which included items not on the standard day to day menu. This was easy to read and supported people to choose what they wanted to eat. People’s care plans included clear guidance on how best to communicate with each person, including any barriers such as cognitive difficulties or the need for equipment like glasses. Newsletters were provided in large print so they were easier for people to read.

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 service carried out a resident survey which was rated overall as ‘good’, although it did not give much detail about areas that could be improved. Compliments were up to date, clearly recorded and reviewed. The leadership team held ‘resident’ meetings, although people we spoke with had mixed awareness of when these meetings took place.

Complaints were also logged and reviewed properly, with clear outcomes.

People and relatives told us they were aware of how to raise concerns or share their views about the service. The provider had a clear complaints process, which recorded each complaint, action taken and the clear outcome reached.

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

The service had systems in place to ensure people could access the healthcare support they needed. Staff supported people to attend appointments and ensured they could be seen by the GP. The staff were confident in contacting them out of hours. Referrals to other professionals, including physiotherapy, podiatry and tissue viability services were made promptly when required and staff used the advice received into people’s ongoing care. Pre‑admission assessments were completed to ensure the service only admitted people whose needs staff could safely meet. One professional told us, “They are proactive in making referrals”.

People had access to the personal equipment they needed, such as glasses or hearing aids, which supported their communication and independence. This information was clearly recorded in care plans, enabling staff to recognise when someone might be struggling with their sight or communication respond appropriately. The service had also introduced adapted drinking equipment to help people maintain their independence during mealtimes.

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.

People were supported to maintain important relationships, with unrestricted visiting times, helping them to stay connected with family and friends. People also had access to bathrooms in their own rooms, and staff adapted personal care routines to reflect individual preferences. Professionals told us people and their families were generally positive about their experience of the service.

People’s views about personal hygiene routines varied, with some people preferring more or less frequent showers, while relatives told us their family members were always clean, tidy and well presented.

Staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion and used pre‑admission assessments to understand each person’s cultural, religious and personal needs. This included preferred names, religious practices, dietary requirements and sensory preferences. Staff used this information to make reasonable adjustments, helping ensure people experienced care that reflected their identity and what mattered to them.

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.

People were helped to plan for important changes in their lives, including at the end of life, so they had time to make informed choices. One person’s end‑of‑life care plan showed what they had understood about their condition, any cultural or religious support they wanted, and which family members should be contacted. It also included their personal wishes if their health deteriorated . Staff used a clear list of the person’s conditions to guide care and to show when extra documents were needed.

The service used a traffic‑light system to track people’s health and plan ahead with them. People in the green stage were stable, but their end‑of‑life wishes could still be recorded if known. If someone’s health declined, they moved to amber. This is where staff could speak to residents and families about their wishes. When someone reached the red stage, they needed urgent care and more emotional support. Staff reviewed these stages every month and updated plans whenever a person’s needs or wishes changed, helping ensure people were prepared and involved in decisions about their future.