Wrenbury 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 remained 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.

People were supported in an individualised and person-centred way. Staff described a flexible approach where people's needs and wishes were at the centre of their care. Feedback from a visiting professional to the home said, “The residents are always at the heart of the care and support.”

One person described how staff had accommodated their needs well and was very complimentary about the support they had received at the home.

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.

Staff aimed to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, working closely with other health and social care professionals. Feedback indicated staff knew people well, monitored their needs closely and were able to identify any changes early.

The registered manager provided examples where they had advocated for people and challenged some commissioning decisions, which enabled people to remain at the home, ensuring familiarity and continuity of care, in line with their wishes.

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

The provider had an accessible information standard policy and procedure. People also had care plans in place, in relation to ensuring information was accessible. However, these could be developed to include more person-centred information.

People also had communication care plans which guided staff about how best to communicate with people. This included using alternative communication such as photo cards or written communication if required. A staff member told us, “Sometimes we will read everything out for them and try to support them.”

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.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place, copies of these were available in each person’s bedroom. The service had not received any recent formal complaints. People and staff felt listened to and understood how to raise a complaint. The registered manager had an open-door policy and people knew her well, having regular contact.

Relative and resident meetings were occasionally held to enable people to provide feedback about the home. The provider undertook staff and relative surveys to gather feedback. The registered manager had analysed the latest relative survey results and presented the outcome, with information about any improvements being made.

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

The registered manager had created a culture or fairness and equality. Staff ensured everyone had access to support and treatment where needed.

Where a person was unable to attend a hospital appointment due to its location, arrangements were being made for the person to be seen at the home instead. Other service providers visited the home, such as a chiropodist and a hairdresser visited weekly. Information was available to staff about how they could access dental services for people.

The home had an accessible garden area, and the first floor was accessible via a lift. There was signage around the building to help guide people and areas were brightly decorated which themes to help promote memories. One person told us, “I have my photo on my door, so I can find my room.”

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.

Staff advocated and supported people to achieve good outcomes. In one example, a person’s health had significantly improved whilst living at the home. The registered manager liaised with commissioners of care to ensure the person’s needs were re-assessed. Plans were then put in place to arrange alternative accommodation and support, to better suit their needs and improved abilities.

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.

Staff followed the Gold Standards Framework (GSF), which is a structured framework used to help improve the quality, coordination, and consistency of care for people at the end of life. They worked closely with their allocated GP, who held monthly meetings using this approach. Recent conversations had been held with people and their relatives in relation ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR)decisions, to establish people’s wishes.

Feedback indicated staff considered people’s wishes about their preferred place of care and supported people to stay at the home wherever possible.