New Forest 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. People were involved in care planning and people’s relatives told us they had been involved in their loved one’s care plan and reviews. Care plans contained information on people’s choices and preferences. We observed that all staff, not just care staff, always interacted positively with people, and spoke to people by name.

Comments from people’s relatives included, “They do get to know [name], and when the activities lady was there, she spent ages with [name] writing down [name’s] life story. It was very impressive” and “They have really got to know my Mum.”

One staff member said, “Care here is shaped around the resident. We find out about people and their lives by sitting and talking to them. It’s nice if they have family that can join in and give us some background information too.” Another staff member said, “When someone new moves in I give them a couple of days to settle and then I go and see them. I introduce myself and find out people's likes and dislikes. I will then do my best to meet people's needs.”

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 understood people’s cultural needs; for example, people were supported with their faith. People’s relatives told us, “My [relative] is a Christian, and there is a church service about once a month” and “[Name] is a Christian and could see the visiting Vicar if [they] wanted to but prefers to organise the Vicar from their own village.”

The registered manager said, “We have a church service monthly, and people can have holy communion.” One staff member said, “We have someone that comes here, and everyone is invited to the service.”

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

People’s communication needs were assessed and when people experienced difficulties with hearing or speech for example, the care plans we looked at were informative and clear. One staff member said, “I will often use closed questions so that the options are clear for people. When they give me an answer, I will clarify this with them. We use picture boards. And reassurance. Some people don’t like loud and noisy environments, so it’s easier to speak with them somewhere quieter.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Regular meetings were held with people and their relatives; we saw these were scheduled for the year ahead and the dates were on display. Minutes of meetings were available. People we spoke with said that they were invited to residents’ meetings but did not always go. One person’s relative told us they tried to attend every time.

Complaints were logged and investigated. Compliments we saw included comments such as, “A very sincere thank you for your care and kindness to [name]. For all your detailed and unselfishness looking after [their] needs, and your friendship" and “The nurses [named], and all the care staff were all amazing, going the extra mile to help [relative]."

We observed the chef seeking people’s feedback after lunch. They came into the lounge and asked each person individually if they had enjoyed their lunch. Everyone except one person in the room said that they had enjoyed their meal. The chef asked if they had eaten anything and when the person said no, the chef asked if they would like something else instead which they then went to make for the person.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Referrals to specialist services such as speech and language therapy (SALT) and tissue viability (TVN) were completed promptly where there was a change in people’s needs. The service had a good relationship with the local GP service.

No concerns were raised about this quality statement. Staff received training in equality, diversity, and human rights.

People were supported to plan, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The service worked closely with the local hospice team to ensure people’s end of life support needs were met. One health professional said, “The team are very responsive. When I visit, they utilise the time while I am there and will contact me outside of these times also if they have concerns, they feel I should be aware of. Any recommendations I make are always followed.”

One person’s relative said, “A family member died recently, and the staff looked after us too. They were fabulous with us and [relative]. It was all handled so sensitively and with great compassion and kindness.”