Pemberley Manor Care and 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people received a service that met their care and support needs.

This service scored 72 (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 were person centred and reflected people’s individual preferences, life histories and wishes. People told us they were involved in assessing and reviewing their care and were happy with the care and support they received. Comments included, “They [staff] always ask and for the bigger things my family and I are involved”, and “They [staff] always ask me and we talk.”

The provider has a ‘resident of the day’ scheme, where a person’s care was focused on for that day. This included ensuring the person’s care plans and risk assessments were up to date and reflective of their needs and wishes, their room was cleaned and checked for any maintenance issues, and the staff team including the activities coordinators and chef asked if there were any special requests they would like.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and risks and completed a range of training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills required to support people safely and appropriately. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals to ensure people received joined up care provision and continuity. An array of health and social care professionals communicated with staff and visited the service on a regular basis, responding to people’s care and support needs. These included GPs, dietitians and community mental health teams amongst others.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People told us staff communicated with them effectively. A person said, “We do talk quite a lot.”

Staff knew people well and knew how best to communicate with them effectively. People’s communication needs were documented within their care plans and these provided staff with guidance. The manager told us if people required information in large print, braille, audio, or in different languages this could be made available to them.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives were encouraged and supported to contribute their views about the service. Meetings for people and their relatives were held on a regular basis. A person told us, “I don’t go to the meetings, but I can tell any of the staff if I need something, and they are very helpful.” A second person commented, “Actually I can’t be bothered, when I have something to say it need not wait for a meeting, staff here do listen.” We looked at the minutes from residents’ meetings; these were well attended by people. Issues discussed at a recent meeting included activities, menu suggestions and dining, privacy, dignity and respect, and residents feedback.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and people and their relatives told us they were aware of this. A person commented, “If I had a complaint, I would talk to the staff.” A second person commented, “I do, to be fair they [staff] deal with any issues very well.” Complaints records showed that when complaints were raised these were investigated and responded to in line with the providers policy, and people were informed of outcomes.

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

People had access to health and social care professionals, and staff held regular rounds with the local GP practice to discuss people's health needs. Staff contacted emergency services when required, and people had access to a range of professionals, such as speech and language therapists and dieticians.

People had the equipment they needed, in line with their assessed needs, such as walking aids, bathing aids and hoisting equipment to ensure their health and safety.

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’s diverse needs and wishes were assessed, documented and respected, detailing any protected characteristics and reasonable adjustments. The provider had an equality and diversity policy and procedure in place and staff had received appropriate training. This meant staff had the information, knowledge and skills to understand and protect people from discrimination.

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 care plans and records in place about their wishes and decisions at the end of their lives.

Staff worked effectively with health care professionals and palliative care teams to assess and plan people’s end of life care, while ensuring their needs and wishes were respected.