Seven Arches 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 64 (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.

Care plans were reviewed regularly but did not always clearly demonstrate who had been involved. The registered manager told us people’s family members were included but they agreed the care plans did not always evidence this. More work was required to demonstrate people and where appropriate relatives were fully involved in care reviews. We also found 1 person’s care plan contained other people’s names within the care plan which did not demonstrate a person-centred approach.

However, people and relatives were positive about the support they received. A person told us, “The nurses come and sit with me and the activity person cares for everyone.”

People’s care plans did include their likes and dislikes such as, “[Person] likes a piece of paper and pen to write and enjoys drawing.”

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 well with other professionals and care plans recorded the advice offered for staff to follow.

The registered manager demonstrated how they allocated staff to people and considered continuity prior to this. They told us of 1 person where particular staff were allocated to them due to their individual needs and their relationships with staff.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The Accessible Information Standard [AIS] was not fully implemented within the service. We found some information on display would not always be accessible for people. Menus and the complaints procedure were displayed but the print was small and could be difficult to read for some people living at the service. There were no pictorial menus displayed to support people living with dementia to be aware of the choices available at the time of the meal. However, the provider told us they had previously supported a person to access a digital devise to aid their communication.

People’s communications needs were recorded within their plan of care.

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 provider had a complaints process in place and there had been no recent complaints from people or relatives using the service. People and relative’s comments included, “Can’t fault it”, “No complaints from me” and “No improvements are required.”

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

Care plans recorded people’s access to other professionals and guidance from professionals such as dieticians, speech and language therapists were recorded and followed by staff.

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.

People told us they were treated fairly and equally by staff. The registered manager told us when people did not have family or someone to represent them, they would refer them to advocacy services. A person said, “I’ve tried different places, they all lack something, my family found this one and I fell in love with it.”

People were not always 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 end of life needs were recorded within their care plans. The registered manager told us people had access to the religion of their choice and they tried wherever possible for them to access this regularly.

Whilst end of life needs were recorded within some care plans, others we looked at did not contain a lot of detail and 1 care plan contained no information about the person’s end of life wishes. The registered manager told us more work was needed to revisit end of life care plans.

The registered manager referred to other professionals when it indicated people were at the end of their life. Some people had Proactive Enhanced Advance Care (PEACE) plans and DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) forms in place to guide staff of their wishes.

Staff had received end of life training. A staff member told us, “When there was no family for an end-of-life resident at night. Staff took turns to sit with them to ensure the resident was not alone.”