Salisbury Manor

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 service under this provider. 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 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 received care that was personalised and met their needs. Staff followed guidance recorded in people’s individual care plans. These were regularly reviewed and kept updated with any changes to people’s needs. People said they were happy with their care. One person said, “We are well looked after and they [staff] do their best, we are happy.”

There was a 1-page summary of people’s needs in their care records which gave staff some key information at a glance. We observed staff supporting people in a person-centred way. People could spend time where they wished and were offered choices for activities, food, drink and where they wanted to sit. Staff clearly knew people’s needs and worked together to provide timely care and support.

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.

People had a continuity with their care as the service used minimal agency staff and had an experienced staff team who knew people well. The service was a nursing home and employed registered nurses amongst the staff and management team. This provided people with a continuity for their clinical care as nurses were able to monitor health outcomes and review daily.

Leaders were aware of local services and professionals to contact if any guidance or support was needed with any aspects of people’s care.

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

People’s care records contained information on their communication needs and what support they might need to understand information and communicate with others. People had a welcome folder in their rooms which gave people information on life at the service. This included pictorial information and large font. Staff wore different colour uniforms depending on their roles and there was a pictorial guide for people to know what colour matched what role. This helped people identify which members of staff they may need.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy which outlined their responses to all complaints and concerns. However, we found not all complaints had been recorded and managed following this process. Some complaints had not been formally recognised as a complaint and passed to the provider complaints team. We could not see evidence all complaints had been fully investigated with a clear response sent to the complainant. The regional director said they would address this shortfall without delay.

However, people and relatives knew how to complain. People said if they spoke with the management about any concerns these would be reviewed. There were regular meetings for people and relatives where areas of concern could be discussed. One relative said, “Things raised at the relatives meeting generally get dealt with and are not recurring.”

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

The building was purpose built with everyone having their own room with en-suite bathroom. There were lifts and stairs to all 3 floors. Access to the garden was on the lower and middle floors and some rooms had patio doors onto the garden. This meant people had easy access to outdoor space that was secure. There was ample garden furniture for people and visitors to use.

Some aspects of the environment could be confusing for people with dementia. For example, some pictures were of abstract patterns. We also observed the pictorial menus being used did not correspond with the food options. We shared this feedback with the registered manager and provider.

Everyone had access to a call bell so they could ring for assistance when needed. Leaders liaised with local surgeries and organised for a GP to come into the service for people to be seen in their room. Other healthcare was also available for people who struggled to leave the service. For example, staff organised for people to see physiotherapists and dentists at the service.

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 received training on equality, diversity and inclusion and people’s human rights. Leaders were aware of ways in which people may face discrimination. The registered manager told us staff made sure people’s human rights were respected. Staff took time to learn about people’s needs and their wishes and where appropriate, involve families in planning people’s care. People and relatives confirmed this was the approach of staff. One person said, “Staff are good and non-judgemental, they show great kindness.”

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 were encouraged to record any wishes for future care and what they wanted for end-of-life care. If people had documents such as Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) this was recorded in their care records, so staff and emergency staff had this information.

Staff had training on end-of-life care and could ask for more if needed. Nursing staff had been provided with end-of-life care training by the local hospice. The registered manager said they were encouraging nurses to share this learning with care staff.