Becket House 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 71 (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.

Care plans detailed people’s needs and captured people’s individual wishes, preferences and choices. Staff were familiar with people’s care plans and used this guidance to provide personalised care.

Staff ensured that people were supported in the way they preferred, including if they changed their minds. For example, a staff member told us, “This morning [person] requested a wash, and I supported them. I did ask them if they wanted a shower as it had been hot, but they said they wanted a wash. Later in the morning they decided that a shower would be good, so I supported them with a shower.”

The service worked to ensure people’s care was joined up and supportive.

People received support from external healthcare professionals when required.

Referrals were made to various healthcare teams. A relative informed us that following a referral made to a specialist health service, they were informed regularly how the treatment progressed for the person.

The service supports people with dementia. At the time of assessment, they did not access local dementia community groups, which could help reduce isolation and enhance people’s wellbeing. The registered manager planned to look into this.

The service did not always supply appropriate information in formats that were tailored to people’s needs. For example, improvements were needed in the area of meal planning and menus. Menus were not displayed in the dining area or people’s rooms and were not available in any other format such as picture menus. This meant that people were not supported in making choices. The signage throughout the service was not clear and therefore did not support people, particularly those living with dementia, in orientation and accessing all areas of their home.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Regular meetings with residents took place where information was shared and feedback discussed, although people who spent most of their time in their bedrooms were not always involved. We saw topics discussed including activities, food and celebrations.

Surveys were conducted with people and their relatives but there was no evidence of follow up actions taken in response to the feedback.

The home had a complaints procedure. Relatives told us the registered manager was very approachable and always accessible to them if they had concerns.

The provider made sure that people could access care, support and treatment when they needed it. For example, people had access to equipment for moving and handling such as hoists, which supports people to transfer from their bed to wheelchair. This gave people opportunities to access the home and their community.

A relative said, “[Person] was bed-bound before coming to the home. Now they get out and take them downstairs if they want to.”

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 had received training in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. This meant staff had knowledge and understanding about how to support everyone to feel valued and respected, with equal access to opportunities.

People, relatives and staff did not raise concerns of any form of discrimination within the service.

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.

People and relatives were involved in end-of-life planning, which was reflected in people’s care plans. This included some people having made decisions about whether they wished to be resuscitated in the event their heart stopped. We saw Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) processes were in place and records were stored properly in the event they were needed in an emergency

This demonstrated the provider was supportive of people’s choices and prepared to meet the needs of people including end of life care.