Hayes Park 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 rated inspection (published 8 March 2022) we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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 where possible and others such as external professionals and relatives, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. However, improvements were required to ensure people received consistent care based on their individual routines, preferences and what was important to them.

People and relative told us they were involved in discussions and decisions about what was important to them and how they wanted care and treatment to be delivered. However, people’s care records were found to be inconsistent in the level of detail of guidance provided for staff, to ensure care was person centred and met the individual and unique needs of all people. The management team agreed improvements were required and agreed to take action.

The service adopted the resident of the day approach, to thoroughly review all aspects of a person's care and treatment on a given day. The aim being to put people at the centre of their care. Whilst records confirmed this approach, we were concerned by the effectiveness of this given the shortfalls we had identified during this inspection.

Staff worked in partnership with external professionals, relatives and representatives to respond to changes in people’s health and wellbeing needs. Care records confirmed they were reviewed monthly or sooner if required. Records showed how others had been communicated and consulted, and how care plans had been updated to reflect changes to care. People were supported to understand their care and treatment conditions and options by being informed. Information had been made available and communicated in the person’s first language.

Reasonable adjustments had been considered in the delivery of care. For example, whilst adapted baths had been installed, the provider had identified people preferred to have shower to a bath and had plans to change bathrooms to shower rooms to better suit people’s needs and choices. Whilst some of the bedrooms had originally been shared, they had been changed to become single occupancy, and there was an option for people to share a bedroom if this was people’s future preference.

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’s care plans in relation to their clinical needs and health conditions were well detailed for staff. This meant staff had required guidance to provide responsive care and treatment and people could be assured their health needs were known, understood and planned for.

Staff and the management team worked closely with health care professionals and advocates who routinely visited the service. External healthcare professionals confirmed staff understood the needs of people in their care, and how care was joined up to ensure people’s health needs were jointly met.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs.

The accessible information standard (a legal requirement for social care providers to ensure information and communication is provided in a way that meets people’s needs and can understand) was being met.

Information was provided in ways that people understood, with various options available. For example, there was a wide range of easy read documents available covering relevant topics such as consent, keeping adults safe, complaints and bullying. Information was also available in different languages and staff were to communicate with people using their first language.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and planned for. This supported staff to understand people’s individual communication needs and preferences.

We observed staff communicating with people in their first language. Staff were easily able to communicate with people effectively, and there were no barriers. Staff gained eye contact when communicating with the person and were unrushed.

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.

The provider had systems and processes that enable people using the service, relatives and staff to share their experience of the service. For example, there was a suggestion box where anyone could post comments and feedback. This was reviewed and responded to by the registered manager.

Residents and relative meetings gave people opportunities to speak up and be heard. The provider invited people and relatives to complete an annual satisfaction survey, which the management team analysed for any themes, patterns and actions required to make improvements.

We reviewed meeting records dated 2025 and a satisfaction survey dated 2024. These confirmed how the management team enabled people to provide feedback and examples showed how the management team had responded to areas that needed improving. For example, people had raised some concerns about meal options and their dining experience. The management team had completed a ‘You Said’ ‘We Did’ that confirmed actions taken.

The provider also enabled staff to share their experience of working at the service via an annual satisfaction survey and staff and supervision meetings. Records confirmed staff had been enabled to provide feedback and this had been responded to and acted upon by the management team.

Feedback from meetings, complaints, compliments, surveys were discussed with staff during daily handover and staff meetings. In addition, actions identified from the provider’s audits and checks and external monitoring and feedback were shared with staff. This meant the provider had an open and transparent approach to listening and involving others to share their experience of the service.

People and relatives confirmed they received opportunities to share their experience of the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had equal access to care and support, and did not experience any barriers. Equality and human rights, including people’s protected characteristics were known, understood and planned for.

People were supported by external healthcare professionals to stay healthy. A representative from the GP practice visited the service weekly to complete health and medication reviews and assessments of people who were unwell. People were supported to attend external health appointments.

The staff rota confirmed sufficient staff were deployed to meet people’s care and treatment needs. Staff had access to out of hours management support in the event of an emergency requiring additional support and guidance.

People’s individual care and treatment needs were assessed before they transferred to the service. This included consideration of any protected characteristics, and any adjustments required. This protected people from discrimination.

Relatives told us they had no concerns in relation to access to services or any form of discrimination.

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.

The management team ensured all people using the service received the same opportunities, experiences and outcomes. The daily staff handover, resident of the day, resident and relative meetings and care record monitoring all supported this.

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 provider’s pre-assessment process confirmed people’s wishes regarding end of life care and treatment was discussed, recorded and planned with them. We saw examples of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) and Advanced Decisions.

There was an internal process and procedure outlining how this information was shared with staff in the event it was required. This important information was known and understood by staff.

Whilst at the time of the assessment no person was at end of life care, the provider had end of life care plan templates available to be completed with the person and their relative to plan their end of life care.

Care records confirmed people’s funeral plan wishes had been discussed and recorded.