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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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. Since our last assessment we observed improvement in this area. Staff were more focused on people and their needs rather than the task. People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs and preferences.

People’s care plans were up to date, and person centred including information about people’s preferences and how to meet people’s communication needs. Personal information was in place to ensure staff understood people and had an insight into their life history. Information on people's past lives was recorded to assist staff to better understand them. Staff and the management team demonstrated a good understanding of the people they were supporting.

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. People had access to healthcare professionals and staff ensured they followed advice. Advice from health professionals was sought in a timely way and incorporated into care plans so staff could provide consistent support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider was aware of the standard and ensured all people's needs were assessed before they commenced the service to ensure any adjustments were implemented. Staff we spoke with understood how to communicate with the people they supported. We saw good, detailed communication care and support plans in people's files for staff to follow. Information was accessible and available in a way to promote the involvement of the person.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People had communication care plans which explained any difficulties they had with their hearing or speech and how best to communicate with them. This ensured staff understood people’s communication needs and provided information in a way they could understand. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The provider had a complaints procedure and responded to concerns appropriately.

Satisfaction surveys were undertaken annually for people who used the service, their relatives and relevant professionals. This ensured feedback was obtained to drive improvements.

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

Referrals had been made to external professionals when people required their healthcare intervention. Some people were visited regularly by the district nursing team and staff told us they had a good rapport with the local GP practice.

The service was accessible to all, with adaptations in place, such as handrails, specialised equipment such as hoists and accessible bathrooms. Pictorial signage was used on communal doors, such as bathrooms and toilets, to aid accessibility and help people locate them. Bedroom doors were painted different colours.

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. Since our last assessment the environment had improved and it was much more dementia friendly, with signage and different coloured handrails to help people navigate around the home. This supported people to maintain their independence.

No one reported any concerns about discrimination. The provider complied with equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equality in the workplace. Staff undertook training in equality and diversity and there was a diverse workforce.

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 care arrangements were in place to ensure people had a comfortable and dignified death. People had RESPECT forms where appropriate reflecting people’s and their family views. A ReSPECT form (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) is a special health document. It helps doctors and nurses understand what care you want in an emergency. Care plans reflected people needs and their relatives had been involved in planning for their future. The service worked with families and people to assess and document their end of life wishes. These were clearly recorded within care plans.