South Wold 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.

The service did monthly audits of peoples care records as well as spot checks to make sure they remained up to date and reflective of peoples care needs. Peoples care records reflected their strengths and preferences

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 flexibly to ensure they met the preferences of people living at the service. For example, on the day of the inspection, there were no female carers on shift due to sickness. In order to support people whose preference was for a female carer, the kitchen staff who was also trained to work as a carer, were able to rearrange their duties to support. Additionally, there were also admin staff who were trained and did shifts as carers.

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

We observed signage around the home to be accessible and dementia friendly. People and their relatives told us the service communicated well with them. Relatives said they were kept informed of any changes in their loved one’s health.

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 registered manager regularly asked people for feedback by chatting to them and gaining informal feedback as well as formalised resident’s meetings. People and relatives told us they did not have any complaints about the service, but if they did, they knew they could talk to the registered manager.

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

The service worked flexibly and ensured staff were available wherever possible. All people and relatives we spoke to gave positive feedback around communication they received from the service.

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.Staff told us they were respectful of people’s cultural needs. All equality and diversity information was recorded in people’s care records.

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.

The service supported people to plan for the end of their lives and respected their wishes. People had been supported to complete ReSPECT forms outlining their wishes. Where people lacked capacity to do so, the service had ensured relatives were involved.