Saxondale 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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. People’s care plans were not always up to date. Inconsistent information was viewed which related to the monitoring of people’s health and care needs. Some plans and risk assessments lacked sufficient detail to ensure that appropriate care was delivered. Some care plans lacked person-centred details about people's preferences and how to meet people's communicative needs. Governance and audit process at the service had failed to identify deficiencies within peoples care plans and risk assessments.

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. Staff worked with people, their families and professionals to provide safe, person centred care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were understood by staff. During the site visit we observed staff taking time with people to make sure they were able to fully express their wishes.

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. Processes were in place to respond to complaints and safeguarding concerns raised; however, these processes were not always followed and did not lead to measurable improvements.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Records evidenced people had referrals made to external professionals where required. Care records required some improvements to ensure robust plans were in place to guide staff following healthcare assessments.

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. Documentation did not always reflect robust working arrangements with external health and social care partners, and as such, positive outcomes for people were not always routinely monitored. Feedback from people and their relatives was mixed. Some people felt they were involved in their care planning and the information recorded about them; however other people told us they were not involved in this.

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. One family member said, “[Relatives] end of life now. They can’t do enough for [Relative]. They check [Relative] regularly. When they should. They called me the other day to let me know they were going to give [Relatives] morphine as their pain was so bad. They care about [Relative].”