Southdown Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed people’s needs effectively using a range of evidence-based tools. We saw consistent use of recognised best practice risk assessment and management tools, which helped staff understand changing risks and needs. Care plans incorporated the information staff gathered from people, relatives, and external professionals, ensuring they were grounded in real insight about the person’s history, preferences, and goals.

Assessment processes began before admission. The manager explained that a nurse assessor created an initial plan, which was expanded during the first weeks as staff built relationships with each person. Relatives confirmed that staff understood their family member well and adapted care as needs changed. One relative described how staff were “patient with their care needs” and kept them updated, which reflected collaborative and person-centred assessment.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received care informed by recognised clinical guidance. Staff worked with external professionals to support safe, evidence‑based decisions. Relatives described positive experiences of clinical oversight, including one who said the nurse was “meticulous in dispensing medicine and discussing it.” The home engaged with dieticians, GPs, respiratory teams, and end‑of‑life specialists to ensure people received relevant clinical input. Staff also adjusted care in response to this advice, such as reviewing insulin regimes or supporting recovery after hospital admissions.

Inspectors observed staff using safe moving and handling practices. During one incident, when a person became distressed during a transfer, staff used de‑escalation techniques and returned later when the person was calmer, demonstrating adherence to best practice for responsive and person‑centred care.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Inspectors observed clear and structured handovers where clinical information, recent hospital visits, concerns, or changes in health were shared. Staff said communication between day and night teams was “good,” and that teamwork helped maintain consistency. Senior staff described constructive working relationships with nurses, and we saw evidence of coordinated support during transfers, meals, and personal care.

Staff said they felt supported by colleagues. One said, “We have a good team. Good communication between the care workers and nursing team.” Another described how nurses listened when they raised concerns about changes in people’s presentation. We saw real‑time examples of this collaborative communication, such as when a staff member immediately escalated a concern about discomfort or when staff discussed changes in appetite or mobility.

Partnership working with external agencies was generally effective. Professionals such as respiratory nurses, safeguarding leads, and dieticians provided input, and the home responded to their advice. However, partner agencies reported reduced engagement from the provider in recent months.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people’s physical health by monitoring changes, responding promptly to needs, and seeking professional advice when required. We saw that staff encouraged eating and drinking and offered alternatives when people declined meals. Relatives confirmed staff tried creative approaches when appetite fluctuated. People said the food was “good,” and we observed staff checking in frequently to offer drinks and support.

The service worked effectively with external professionals to support people’s health. Staff followed up on community dental and audiology appointments, arranged antibiotics when needed, and liaised with end‑of‑life teams to ensure comfort and dignity.

We observed staff supporting people to mobilise with hoists and walking aids, reflecting an understanding of the importance of maintaining mobility. Staff also used activities, such as quizzes, to support mental stimulation. The provider had plans to introduce a music therapy project to improve wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Daily handovers were held to ensure staff were kept well informed about people’s health and wellbeing. This enabled a consistent approach to care delivery and monitoring of outcomes. We were informed about one person who had returned to the home after a period in hospital and staff had been able to support this person to return to a similar state of health and independence as they had prior to their illness.

The management team told us the transition to electronic care records was planned to improve information accuracy and enable better outcome tracking.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We found that staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Care plans contained capacity assessments, best interests decisions and accessible information sheets to inform decision making.

Staff sought consent before providing support. We observed staff explaining actions before moving or assisting people, and returning later when a person declined a meal. These practices supported people’s rights and ensured decision‑making remained person‑centred. Relatives confirmed staff involved them appropriately when people’s capacity was limited.