Nodens Manor Care 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 the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

Feedback showed relatives participated in planning people’s care with staff. Care delivery aligned with people’s care plans.

People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs and included information that was important for staff to be aware of when providing support. A ‘Who I am’ page recorded things that were important to each person such as if they spoke about their family a lot or how they liked to start their day. There was information included in a sexuality care plan which had good detail on how people approached their significant relationships and how staff could support these.

The service held various activity sessions to cater for different needs and preferences One relative said, “They are gradually getting her to activities, she wouldn’t go at all but then one day we came in and found her at a ‘cheese and wine’ session, so we just watched her enjoy it”.

Care plans contained information on how to support people if they became anxious and how staff could de-escalate a situation and meet the person’s needs in these times. One relative told us “Sometimes it’s difficult due to dementia. She loses her words; they are good at deflecting or they know who she spoke to the day before and check with them what was said”.

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 told us they received care from staff who knew them and their needs well.

Staff told us they got to know people well by spending time with them and reading the care plans and assessments.

One professional told us, they were working with the service to ensure people received joined up care between health and social care. “We started to roll out a care home support pack with the care home to aid them in providing immediate care including photographing wounds when initially identified. They were very open and receptive to this.”

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

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard by identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. The service provided information and advice that was accurate and up to date.

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. People’s rights and decisions around consent were understood and respected by staff and the service.

The service had different ways that people could feedback about their experience. For example, there were resident meetings and a sign on the notice board stating the home welcomed feedback and any member of the team could be approached. There was also a quick feedback experience when visitors signed out of the service and a feedback book available in reception.

One relative told us, “If I want to talk I can go down to manager and he will deal with it, if I am concerned about her chest I talk to them, but they have got to know her well now and they pick up on things and ring GP quickly”. Another person said, “They do have residents’ meetings, the last one came with a zoom link, which was good. I felt more included” “They send activity menus every month and feedback on the newsletter.”

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

People who used the service received the care, support and treatment when they needed it regardless of any protected characteristics. The service worked with local GP practices and community nursing teams. The service had a good relationship with these teams who visited the service regularly and when required.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and care plans reflected any reasonable adjustments the person needed to ensure their needs were met. For example, some people required extra monitoring to ensure they were safe.

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. People had good outcomes and experiences of the service regardless of their needs, backgrounds or protected characteristics under the Equality Act. This was observed in practice. Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights.

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 had RESPECT and DNACPR forms where appropriate reflecting people’s and their family views. One relative told us how their family member living at the service had been involved in plans about their end-of-life care. “The district nurses came in daily; they [person] did not want to go to hospital. They [person] were involved in own care plan.”