Stretton Hall 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.

This is the first assessment for this service with the new provider. Previously with the old provider responsive was rated good. At this assessment the service continues to be rated good for responsive. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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. The home used visual pictures to help people identify where they were in the home and how to navigate to other areas of the home. People’s bedrooms were person centred and people had brought personal belongings to have in their bedrooms. 1 person told us, “My room is my happy place, I have everything I want right here”. Care plans and risk assessments were person centred and held meaningful information for each person.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 home used visual pictures to help people identify where they were in the home and how to navigate to other areas of the home. People’s bedrooms were person centred and people had brought personal belongings to have in their bedrooms. 1 person told us, “My room is my happy place, I have everything I want right here”. Care plans and risk assessments were person centred and held meaningful information for each person.

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 had input from the local authority’s quality team. The quality team supported the manager and worked closely with them to identify any concerns. Action plans were then put in place and worked from with achievable timescales. Partners we spoke with raised no concerns around communication with the provider and actions taken since the new management were in place. During our visit, we spoke with a physiotherapist who told us, “The home was good, the staff communicate with each other well and the resident is always ready and expecting the visit”.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The accessible information standards were followed for people. Care plans detailed people's communication needs. Staff were able to describe how people communicated. Complaints processes were on display, as well as information around keeping people safe and advocacy services. Staff had access to speaking up numbers and services available.

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. People were able to provide regular feedback, ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The management and staff listened to people. Any changes in people’s care involved them or where appropriate their advocates.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However, during our assessment we were made aware by staff that 1 person had suspected scabies. They were not receiving any treatment for this. Management were not aware of this suspected outbreak as staff nurses had not informed them. We raised the concern of this being a suspected outbreak with no precautions in place with the manager and the manager arranged for the person to be seen by the GP. The person was then put on a precautionary treatment plan. The home had a weekly GP visit. Staff would raise any health concerns in the handover meetings to the nurses and this would be prioritised for the GP visit so people’s health needs could be met.

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 manager had brought new ideas and actioned changes within the home to explore how the service could further meet people’s needs. Staff could identify people who were at risk of isolation and how to prevent this from happening. The home involved local communities and supported people to attend local activities. For example, we saw people attend a local pumpkin farm to collect their pumpkins for the party to be held at the home. 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 manager had brought new ideas and actioned changes within the home to explore how the service could further meet people’s needs. Staff could identify people who were at risk of isolation and how to prevent this from happening. The home involved local communities and supported people to attend local activities. For example, we saw people attend a local pumpkin farm to collect their pumpkins for the party to be held at the home.

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. End of life plans were developed in people’s care plans. These included conversations with people’s relatives and where appropriate advocates legally acting on people’s behalf.