New Victoria 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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation in relation to Safe care and treatment as care plans were not always accurate and complete. The provider remains in breach related to safe care and treatment. See the Safe key question.

This service scored 71 (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.

However, while staff had suitable knowledge not all plans guided staff on how to respond should people display distressed behaviours. Staff actions showed they were aware of how to be responsive and deliver person-centred care. The registered manager reviewed people’s care plans and added additional information.

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. Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices, specialist nurses, speech and language therapy and social workers.

We observed the registered manager had arranged a meeting that included the person, relatives and social worker. This ensured all relevant stakeholders worked together to meet people’s needs.

There was a core team of staff that had worked for the provider for several years. This provided people with stability and continuity of support.

We observed staff promote positive interactions, they spoke with people using plain language, crouched so they were at the same eye level and gave people time to respond. We observed staff used humour to foster positive relationships.

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.

There was a complaints procedure which was accessible to people and those who were important to them. People said they knew how to make a complaint and would feel comfortable doing so without fear of reprisals and believed their concerns would be acted upon. People knew the names of the senior staff to whom they could approach. One person told us, “I know the boss.” A second person said, “Yes, the manager is marvellous.” We saw that when one person had a concern they had emailed the regional manager and received a swift response with an outcome to the raised concern.

Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Some concerns noted at our last inspection were still present at this assessment.

We could not see evidence that all the concerns around safety were appropriately investigated. One person who had a deprivation of liberty safeguard (DoLS) in place to keep them safe, had managed to leave the premises unsupervised on several occasions. However, these incidents had not been investigated.

The registered manager shared raised concerns with staff in their morning meetings to raise awareness and gather feedback to drive improvements. Staff knew where and how to record incidents and felt confident the registered manager would act on raised concerns.

When 1 person had raised a concern with the operations manager we saw they had received a timely response scheduling when action would be taken.

Staff and management 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 had a good understanding of people and care records demonstrated people were able to access services when these were needed to meet their individual and unique needs.

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. Where people had shared their end of life wishes, these were documented and known by staff. This included funeral plans and DNACPRs. DNACPR stands for ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)’. It means that if a person has a cardiac arrest or dies suddenly, there will be guidance on what action should or shouldn’t be taken by a healthcare professional, including not performing CPR on the person. One staff member told us, “End of life care we make peaceful; it’s made to be pain free and peaceful. We listen [to people] as it can be difficult for them to talk to their families.”