The Star 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service had transitioned to an electronic medicine administration record system, but this lacked person-centred information on how people preferred to take their medicines. There was insufficient information regarding end-of-life care wishes in care plans. Care plans lacked information regarding people’s preferences, likes and dislikes, hobbies and interests, life history, and what is important to them.

We found a lack of evidence that people were supported to take part in meaningful activities, and some people’s rooms lacked personalisation to help them feel at home.

We received mixed feedback about person-centred care. Some people and their relatives provided feedback which raised concerns that people’s care was not personalised to meet their choices and needs. For example, 1 person told us, “I get a lot of food that I don’t like, and they don’t give me anything different.” Another relative told us, “I don't think [family member] has anywhere near the amount of stimulation they need. Although [family member] has dementia they are still able bodied.”

However, we also had positive feedback from people and relatives about person-centred care for example, playing someone’s favourite music during personal care to provide reassurance and comfort.

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.

We saw evidence of joined up care and working with partners and other services. People living at the service had diverse health and care needs and we saw evidence of liaison with other services when someone’s health needs changed. Staff told us how they had contacted local religious communities to provide spiritual support to people.

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

The menu was available in picture format to help people with their food choices. Documentation could be produced in easy read format and other languages if required. Newsletters were sent out monthly with updates on what had been happening at the home. The manager advised that relatives were contacted when their family member was resident of the day to review their support. People were provided with a service user guide with important information when they moved to the home. Information and updates about activities that had taken place were shared via social media.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Some people and relatives felt that communication could be better. One person told us, “As far as I can remember I haven’t discussed my care with anyone here.” Another person told us, “I don’t know anything about a care plan, and we haven’t discussed anything like that.”

One relative told us, “No, I don't know about relatives’ meetings, or questionnaires and that, we get an e-mail from time to time, maybe twice a year. There is not much communication with families.” Another relative told us, “I'm not really involved in any care plan, and I'm never asked to go in for a meeting or any kind of follow up.”

However, we saw evidence of staff, resident and relative meetings taking place. Surveys had been shared with staff, people and relatives and feedback had been analysed and findings shared. Some people told us they knew the Manager well and they could raise any concerns to them. One relative told us, “They do keep me informed of anything I need to know.”

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

Staff accompanied people to appointments and hospital if required. The premises were accessible and there was no evidence that people experienced barriers or exclusion to services.

We saw evidence that referrals were made to other services when required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People and their representatives told us they were not involved in planning their care and support. Care plans did not include information on people’s strengths and outcomes were not person centred.

However, staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights which we observed them putting into practice when supporting people.

People were not always 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.

End of life care plans were not detailed enough and did not consider people’s end of life wishes and considerations surrounding final days of life. For example, their wishes for their environment, family support and spirituality. The majority of people and relatives we spoke with told us they had not had discussions about end-of-life planning.

However, end of life care training was completed by care staff and there was an end-of-life champion to enhance the home’s end of life care. One relative told us, “We have had the discussion, and the vicar comes to visit which is a comfort. As far as I am concerned, they know our wishes.”