Hebburn Court 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.

The service continued to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 54 (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.

Care plans had been reviewed and updated. However, they required further development to ensure they contained accurate information which fully reflected people’s individual needs. A relative told us staff did not consistently follow the measures in their family member’s care plans.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Care plans required further development so they accurately informed staff about people’s preferences and how they wanted their care. The provider also needed to ensure people’s care was provided consistently, in line with their agreed care plans. Staff did not always follow people’s care plan. A relative also told us this regularly happened to their family member.

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

Communication care plans had been reviewed and updated. Information was displayed in accessible formats around the home, such as the activities planned for the day. A relative told us, “They know what [family member] does and doesn’t like and even though [family member] is non-verbal they always find a way to communicate with [family member].”

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.

Since the last inspection, there had been no complaints about the service. The provider had started regular relatives’ meetings, however some relatives felt the meetings weren’t always accessible as they were held during the daytime.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The first-floor environment was still being developed to ensure it met the needs of people living with dementia. This included signage to aid orientation, more stimulating decor and use of colour. In the meantime, some people living with dementia were relocated to the ground floor. A relative commented the refurbishment was taking longer than expected and there was no plan for their family member to move back upstairs.

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.

External health professionals had reviewed people’s needs and made recommendations to ensure people received appropriate care. However, this was not followed for one person.

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’s care plans needed updating to reflect their individual needs. Including their future care preferences.