Frithwood 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 service met people’s needs. The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of legal regulations relating to person-centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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 ensured people received consistent person-centred care and support. Care plans included personalised information and guidance for staff to make sure they treated people as individuals. People using the service and their relatives told us their needs were met. A relative commented, “Everything we need is supplied. We work with the staff to make sure [person’s] needs are met.”

People were able to rise and retire at times of their choosing. They were offered regular baths and showers. People were dressed in clean clothes, and staff were attentive to their hair and nails. People took part in a range of enjoyable social and leisure activities. Staff understood their individual interests and helped them to pursue these when possible.

The provider helped to make sure people could access the services they needed in the community. This included liaising with different healthcare professionals and providing support for people to attend appointments. They also supported people to access shops and leisure facilities when they wanted this. Families were welcome at any time and were able to be involved in care, eat with people and to stay at the service if their relative was unwell or at the end of their lives.

The provider ensured people had the information they needed. There was a service user guide in every room. Other information about the service was on display and shared with people. The provider had notice boards in the house which they regularly changed and updated to give staff, visitors and people information about different conditions and areas of interest. Menus were displayed and there was good signage to help people orientate themselves.

Staff spoke with people in a range of languages. They also used visual guides, translation books and applications to help them communicate well with people when needed.

The provider ensured people had opportunities to speak up and give feedback. People and their relatives were involved in reviews of care. There were regular meetings for everyone to discuss the service and any changes people wanted. The chef and activities coordinator asked for feedback after meals and activities to help them plan and develop the service to meet people’s needs. The provider asked stakeholders to complete satisfaction surveys and the results of these were analysed to help make improvements.

There was a suitable complaints procedure. People knew who to speak with if they had any concerns. A relative explained, “The manager came to us personally and told us to speak directly with [them] if we had any concerns.” Records showed that complaints had been investigated and learnt from. The provider had given feedback to complainants about their actions and monitored their satisfaction with the outcome.

The provider supported people to access the services they needed both within the home and externally. They ensured people’s individual needs were being respected and met. For example, supporting them with culturally appropriate meals and to practice their religions. Staff carried out regular checks on people to make sure they were happy and safe. Staff undertook training to identify and address any barriers to accessing services, such as language or mobility issues. The environment was accessible for people with physical disabilities to move safely around. There were grab rails, ramps, good lighting and accessible bathrooms.

The provider had procedures to ensure people were treated equitably. Staff undertook training around equality and diversity. People’s care plans included information about their individual needs and lifestyle choices. People were treated with respect and staff used their preferred names and pronouns. There was a plan of organised activities which were appropriate for people’s age, abilities and diverse needs.

The provider helped people and their relatives plan for the future. They supported people to develop person-centred plans to be followed if they became very unwell or were dying. The staff had training to understanding about providing sensitive end of life care. They worked with external professionals to monitor people’s needs and to make sure appropriate changes and adaptations were made when people needed these. A relative told us, “The nurses and manager reassure us when [person] is not well. They are very attentive.” Nurses had completed training to understand when and how to administer the medicines people needed at the end of their lives to ensure they were comfortable and pain free. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to provide supportive care to people at their end of their lives. A staff member told us, “Sometimes people are agitated and restless. We try to ensure everything is peaceful for them. If possible, we help them to have a change of environment outside their room. We sit with people and stay with them when they need us.”