SeeAbility - Heather House 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.

Care plans were person centred to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, people were supported with personal care in a way and at a time of their choosing to help reduce their anxieties.

The provider had an activity centre people could access which included, a gym, a music room, an art room and a kitchen for baking. The provider has a social and activities team in place. People were offered a range of meaningful activities. During our on-site inspection visits we observed people’s bedrooms were personalised and individually tailored to their needs. The outside space was accessible and safe.

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.

Relatives told us, staff were proactive with healthcare appointments, and they were always kept up to date. Some relatives told us they were involved in attending appointments and this was welcomed.

Staff had completed training and understood the Equality Act.2010The registered manager gave us examples of when they had collaborated with other professionals to ensure care was joined up. They also told us some professionals visited people in the home which helped alleviate some of the people’s anxieties. This helped to remove some of the barriers to care.

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

People had communication aids in place, including electronic tablets and communication boards.

Easy read documents were available, and the registered manager evidenced how these had been used to support some people. For other people, easy read documentation was not helpful, they required staff who understood their specific communication style to aid them. This meant people could make their needs and wishes known to staff.

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.

They involved people in decisions about their day-to-day care and told them what had changed as a result.

People living in the home were asked for their views in a variety of formats throughout the year, these included in daily conversations and in meetings with the multi-disciplinary team supporting them. The registered manager gave as an example of when a person had asked to see them and then made a complaint which was a safeguarding concern. The complaint was investigated, the person was kept up to date during the process, and the outcome was shared with the person. This meant people’s views were listened to and drove improvement.

The registered manager told us, if needed they would engage the use of advocacy services to ensure people were heard.

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

Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against.

Each person had a hospital passport in place. We reviewed these documents and noted people’s individual risks and health conditions were included. This could be shared with other professionals to reduce potential barriers to care within the health and social care system.

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 understood how the Equality Act 2010 applied to their role. Staff treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone who needed them. This meant people were less likely to experience discrimination.

The registered manager told us, “From a health perspective we make sure people have access to full health care, they visit the GP practice when needed. Within the local community we access shops, library and pubs. A few people we support go to the local barbers.”

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.

We found some people’s end of life plans did not include enough information, for example, how and where a person would want to be supported at the end of their life. We spoke with the registered manager about this, who told us they would review and add this information.

We reviewed the provider compliments log which included several detailed compliments from relatives about the end of life care their relatives received. This evidenced relative’s felt supported, listened to and their loved ones were supported by a kind, compassionate and caring staff team at the end of their lives.