Osbern 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 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 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 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.

People received care that reflected their preferences, routines and what mattered to them in day-to-day life. Staff knew people well and described how they adapted their approach depending on each person’s mood, communication style and familiar routines. Detailed information about people’s histories, likes and dislikes helped staff provide personalised support, and people told us they felt involved in everyday decisions.

However, the written care plans did not always match this good practice. In several people’s care records, we found mistakes such as incorrect names or mixed pronouns. These errors meant the care plans did not always reliably show who the person was or what support they needed, and this reduced confidence that care was planned in a fully person-centred way.

The provider had an good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.
Staff worked well together to make sure people received consistent care throughout the day. Each floor had a clear team who understood their roles and how to support each other. Staff explained how they shared information during handovers and through regular conversations, which helped them respond quickly when people’s needs changed. One staff member said, “Everyone knows who is doing what and who to speak to if something changes.” which reflected good teamwork and communication. Staff also contacted external health professionals, such as GPs and district nurses, when people needed extra support. These approaches helped make sure people experienced joined‑up and reliable care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People and their families were kept informed when incidents happened, and managers held regular meetings to share updates. People told us they felt able to ask staff for information when they needed it, with one person saying, “I would speak to the staff if I needed anything.” Some people felt able to seek information and receive clear explanations when they needed them.
Families also asked managers for clearer practical information about activities, weekend staffing and how to book rooms for family events, and managers agreed to make improvements in these areas.
 

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 told us staff listened to them and involved them in everyday choices, and staff explained how they took time to talk through what they were doing and adapted their approach to suit each person’s needs. Families were regularly involved in discussions about important decisions, including changes in health, hospital discharges and end of life wishes. Relatives told us they felt informed, with one saying, “We raised a concern in the past and it was dealt with promptly.”
Managers had held people and relatives meetings to gather views on daily life, food, activities and how the home was run. People and families made suggestions, such as having meetings at different times and improving information about activities, and managers agreed to these changes.
At the most recent meeting, families discussed activity quality, wheelchair seating and dietary options, and managers recorded clear actions in response.
People survey feedback showed they were happy with the cleanliness, staff attitude and the environment, though some wanted more communication from managers.
The complaints record also showed that when concerns were raised, the home took action in a timely way.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
People were able to access the care and support they needed when they needed it. Staff were visible around the home, responded promptly, and made sure that support with meals and mobility was never rushed. When people required input from external health professionals, staff contacted services such as NHS 111 appropriately to ensure people received timely help.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was tailored in response to this.
The service supported people in a way that promoted fairness, dignity and inclusion. Staff spoke positively about the people they cared for and understood how individual backgrounds, communication styles and personal identities might influence people’s experiences. The provider was alert to discrimination and took steps to reduce inequalities, demonstrated by their own policies. People told us they were treated kindly, with respect, and felt comfortable speaking with staff if something was not right.
Overall, people told us they felt included and listened to, and we saw examples where staff made reasonable adjustments so everyone could participate in daily life as equally as possible. This showed the service was supporting people in a way that promoted equity and upheld their 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.
Records we reviewed showed that end of life care was generally well delivered, with clear and compassionate support for people and their families. People’s wishes were clearly recorded in their ReSPECT forms. A ReSPECT form is a personalised emergency care plan that sets out what is important to the person and the treatments they would or would not want if they became very unwell and could not make decisions for themselves.
One person’s form showed they wished to remain at Osbern Manor rather than go to hospital, and this was supported by a clear decision not to attempt resuscitation.
Nurses and GPs were closely involved, carrying out regular reviews of pain and comfort, and prescribing medicines in advance so symptoms could be managed quickly when needed. Care records also showed sensitive and consistent communication with family members throughout the person’s final days. Staff documented comfort measures such as two hourly repositioning for those who needed it, helping to maintain dignity and reduce discomfort. Staff spoke confidently about how they support people at the end of their life and the actions they take to make this time as comfortable and respectful as possible.