Goldenpark 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered 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.

Person centred care plans were in place, providing clear guidance to staff on how to support each person in a way that respected their wishes and promoted their independence. Care plans were reviewed regularly by senior staff, alongside people and their families or external professionals where appropriate. Updates were made to reflect any changes in needs, such as mobility, cognitive function, or emotional wellbeing. This ensured care remained flexible, personal, and up to date.

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.

Visiting professionals told us staff were approachable and open to feedback, and they worked together to achieve the best outcomes for people. This meant care could be tailored and adjusted as people’s needs changed. Staff worked closely with other health and social care professionals to maintain consistency, help people move easily between services, and support them in making informed decisions about their care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. The provider assessed people’s communication needs as part of their initial assessments and continued to review them regularly.

Care plans included clear guidance on alternative methods of communication tailored to each individual’s needs and abilities. These approaches included the use of simple, direct language, gestures or visual prompts, and communication aids.

Staff told us how they adapted their communication for people with cognitive difficulties, such as people living with dementia.

We observed staff adapting their communication approach to suit individual needs and took time to understand how each person preferred to engage. This helped ensure people could express their choices.

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.

For example, the provider held regular relatives’ and residents’ meetings with structured agendas that encouraged people to raise concerns and offer suggestions. Outcomes from these meetings were recorded, with progress updates shared at subsequent meetings.

A ‘Resident of the Day’ system was in place to personalise care further. People were invited to share their views with staff, including the manager, chef, and activity coordinator supporting a holistic, person-centred approach.

Where a resident lacked capacity or was unable to communicate, relatives were invited to participate in the process to ensure care remained tailored to the individual’s preferences and needs.

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

Staff recognised when people required additional or specialist input and appropriate referrals to health and social care professionals were made. A relative told us, “After my [family member] assessment, the care plan was reviewed and updated with input from the physiotherapist.”

Care records evidenced how concerns were escalated to relevant health professionals when needed. Appointments with health professionals were clearly recorded in people’s care documents.

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. Reasonable adjustments were made for people where needed. Staff received training in equality and diversity which supported them to understand people’s differences and how best to support them.

The home environment was adapted to improve accessibility, making communal areas easier for people to access. Handrails were installed to support individuals in maintaining mobility and independence.

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 encouraged people to share their end of life wishes and viewed this as a positive contribution to people’s care planning. Care plans were detailed and respectful of people’s wishes.