Bourne House 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service, following a change of 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 did not always make 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.

The provider worked with people and those important to them, to understand their needs and preferences. People's care records contained personalised information, wishes and preferences. Staff understood people well and relatives consistently told us staff took time to learn about people's backgrounds, interests and routines.

Relatives described care that reflected people's individual preferences and interests. Staff encouraged people to maintain independence, supported them to participate in activities they enjoyed and adapted support when people's needs changed.

However, processes were not always fully person-centred, for example, sexuality was not assessed or considered. This meant inclusive assessment processes could be improved. This was discussed with managers who told us this will be addressed once the new provider’s assessment processes were fully embedded.

The provider generally worked well with partners to plan and deliver joined-up care that met people's changing needs.

People and relatives told us communication regarding changes in health needs was good. Families consistently told us they were informed promptly about incidents, accidents and healthcare appointments.

The service demonstrated effective multidisciplinary working. Visiting healthcare professionals told us staff worked proactively with external agencies, communicated effectively and supported people with complex health and nursing needs. Records showed care needs were reviewed regularly.

People had access to healthcare services and specialist support when required. Staff described good access to urgent care services and local hospice support, and there was evidence of joint working to review medicines and respond to changes in people's health.

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

The provider made sure people, relatives and representatives received information in a way they could understand. Information about menus and activities was readily available throughout the home and care records showed people were supported according to their communication needs. Menus were displayed and staff offered alternatives if people did not wish to eat what was planned.

Relatives told us information about the service, activities and people's care was easy to access. One relative said, "The menu and list of activities are always in my [relatives’] bedroom." Another told us, "There are menus up in the foyer and there is always an activities list for the week up in my [relative’s] room."

Policies reviewed included accessible information standards and consent and confidentiality procedures. Relatives consistently reported they were kept informed about changes in health, accidents, appointments and care needs.

The provider also communicated regularly through family meetings and routine updates. The provider recognised that some people were unable to understand written information due to cognitive impairment and involved relatives and representatives appropriately when decisions or information sharing was required.

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.

Relatives described being consulted about care planning, involved in reviews and encouraged to share feedback. The service held regular resident and relative meetings where people could raise concerns and suggest improvements.

Relatives told us concerns were usually acted upon. One relative said, "The manager of the home and the nursing sister dealt with it very quickly and resolved it in the manner which I would have expected." Another relative told us concerns raised at meetings were "dealt with immediately."

Annual resident and staff surveys identified areas requiring improvement, including communication and team cohesion. Although feedback had been collected, the provider had not yet clearly identified actions in response to all concerns raised through these surveys.

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

People had access to healthcare professionals, specialists and services appropriate to their needs.

Relatives told us they were able to visit freely and were welcomed by staff and managers. People were supported to access activities and services within the home, including hairdressing, visiting entertainers, exercise sessions and healthcare clinics.

Care records included information about people's religious needs and preferences, helping staff provide support that respected people's backgrounds and beliefs. Policies reviewed included equality, diversity and inclusion guidance, helping support fair and equitable care delivery.

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.

Managers supported staff to understand individual needs. Care plans were detailed and included people’s social histories and individual preferences. The home was staffed 24 hours a day and staff were supported by the on-call managers during out of hours.

One relative told us, "The staff treat them very much as individuals in their own right." Care plans included information about people's preferences and religious needs. Staff described understanding individual risks, abilities and support requirements, while healthcare professionals told us residents' needs were appropriately assessed and supported.

However, some people told us they felt some interactions could be more respectful. This showed there remained opportunities to strengthen consistency in people's experiences across the service.

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.

Care records included information about people's wishes and preferences, and staff reviewed people's support needs regularly through established care review processes. The provider used monthly reviews and multidisciplinary working to identify changes in need and adapt support accordingly.

Relatives told us they were involved in discussions about care planning and future support arrangements where appropriate and described participating in review meetings alongside health and social care professionals to help ensure people's needs continued to be met.