Southdown 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.

People generally received person‑centred care that reflected their preferences, and staff usually knew individuals well. Interactions were caring and respectful, and staff adapted support such as meals and personal care around people’s choices. Relatives felt staff were kind and attentive, particularly during times of ill health and at the end of their life.

Care plans captured key information about risks, medicines, support needs and advanced care planning wishes, although some sections lacked detail about what mattered to people. Overall, people were treated as individuals, but the provider needed to strengthen how personal information was reflected consistently in care records.

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.

Care was usually well coordinated across the day. Handovers between nursing and care staff were structured and informative, helping the team respond to people’s changing needs. Staff described good teamwork, and relatives said they were reassured by how well health professionals and the service worked together.

The provider engaged a range of external professionals when required, and there were examples of people achieving positive outcomes following illness.

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

People and relatives generally received information they needed in a clear and reassuring way. Staff explained care as they delivered it, and relatives described good communication from nurses and managers, especially about health needs and medicines. Accessible Information Standard policies were in place, with communication preferences recorded in care plans.

Some relatives said routine updates could be improved and reported they had not always been involved in formal care‑planning discussions. Managers recognised communication as an area for improvement and had introduced additional staff training.

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.

Staff listened to people and responded quickly to day‑to‑day requests. Relatives felt able to raise concerns and said staff were approachable and willing to adapt care when issues were highlighted.

A complaints process was in place and we saw individual complaints were heard and responded to. Low‑level concerns, such as laundry issues, were recorded but not always analysed and incorporated into service improvement processes.

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

People were able to access the care and services they needed, including input from GPs, dietitians and specialist teams. Some external delays affected access, including waits for hearing aids and dentistry, but the provider was working to resolve this. Equality and diversity policies were in place to support equity in access for people using the service.

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 and respected people’s cultures, religion and sexuality. Specific support was in place to support people from different cultures and meet their communication needs. These actions demonstrated a commitment to personalised care that respected people’s protected characteristics, promoting fairness and equality in experiences and outcomes.

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.

The service supported future and end‑of‑life planning well. Advanced care planning and urgent care planning documents were used, and staff demonstrated confidence in managing end‑of‑life care, including medicines, symptom control and comfort. Relatives gave powerful accounts of dignified, compassionate support during their family members final days of life.

Managers acknowledged that communication around two recent deaths required improvement and had taken steps to strengthen this through training and reflective learning.