Hillcroft Nursing Home Morecambe

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 of this key question, 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.

Care plans were reflective of the person-centred care we observed and showed that each individual was at the centre of their care plan. Care plans described people’s needs and were written in a person-centred way, this demonstrated the staff team knew people well and were able to provide them with the right support. People’s care plans were reviewed regularly with them and where relevant families were included in this.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and staff demonstrated they knew how to manage people’s specific needs, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and their relatives told us that they were very satisfied and happy with the care and support they received. People’s individual needs and outcomes had been appropriately assessed for the type of service they received. Staff had received enhanced training in dementia care. The home worked closely with a variety of local health care professionals and with local commissioners.

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

People’s communication needs were recorded, and relective of the Accessible Information Standards. Care plans included detailed information on each person’s different communication needs. Information available in the home was provided in different formats suitable for people’s differing needs. Where people were nonverbal the staff had devised and used appropriate cues to establish effective communication. Information about people in the home was kept securely via electronic records which staff could access readily.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and their relatives told us they felt confident sharing their views with the service. Peoples concerns and complaints were recorded and responded to. The provider collected feedback on the service in a variety of ways from people and acted on it.

People were aware how to raise a complaint. People said they would raise concerns with staff or registered manager before raising a formal complaint. There were formal procedures for people to raise complaints if they wished to do so.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People’s needs and what reasonable adjustments they needed had been implemented to ensure people had equal access to services.

There was clear evidence of collaborative working and good communication with other professionals in health and social care system as well as in the local community. Out of hours support was in place, covered by the management team to ensure staff always had access to support. The building was designed to ensure it was accessible to people, appropriate aids, adaptions and specialised equipment were in place. Lift access was available to the upper floor of the building.

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, people and family members did not identify any concerns about discrimination. Relatives were clear that people’s right were upheld and they were treated and respected as individuals. One relative said, “I call in at any time, there is full transparency here. [Relative] is really happy and being looked after well.”

People were fully supported by well trained and experienced staff who could ensure their rights and equality needs were upheld. People's diversity and their unique individual needs were noticeably well-respected by staff.

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 involved in making decisions and wishes about their future and in identifying their goals and aspirations. People’s wishes for their end of life care where appropriate had been discussed and noted. People and their families were supported to express their decisions around Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), and these wishes were recorded in care plans.

We found people were supported at the end of their life by staff who had received more complex training in the delivering of end of life care and who worked jointly with local community nurses. We saw compliments had been paid to the staff team that had cared for their relatives at the end of their lives.