Nightingale Court

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 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.
Staff had a good understanding people’s preference and what mattered most to them. Care plan’s we reviewed reflected people’s wishes and promoted independence, choice and control. During interviews with staff, one staff member told us, “The new care plans are all about the residents, they are more person-centred and a lot easier to follow. Updates to care plans are instant, so we have the most up to date information”.
The home demonstrated how they respond effectively when people’s care needs change. For example, they had recently supported a person receiving end‑of‑life care. Working in partnership with the individual, their family, and external healthcare professionals, the home ensured the person’s care and support were regularly reviewed and accurately reflected in their care plan. This approach meant the person’s wishes were respected and staff had clear guidance on how they wanted to be supported.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.
The provider was proactive in working with people and their families to ensure continuity and promote choice. Staff also took a proactive approach in liaising with external healthcare professionals to ensure people’s support needs were met, including when those needs changed.
A new activities coordinator had recently been appointed, and the home’s activity programme had been reviewed and updated. People were involved in shaping the planner, and their interests and preferences were considered.
During our assessment, we observed a range of activities being offered within the home, including external providers delivering sessions. However, further development was needed to create a more meaningful programme that incorporated a wider range of community‑based activities. Planners we looked at were recently reviewed and offered a lot more activities onsite. However, more consideration needed to be given for community based activities on offer, potentially with the new activities co-ordinator.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
The provider ensured that information shared with people was accessible and tailored to their individual needs. During our assessment, we observed visual supports displayed throughout the home, along with information presented in easy‑read formats.
The new provider had also introduced regular resident meetings, creating opportunities to share updates and to hear directly from people about their wishes and views.
Relatives we spoke with told us communication from the provider was effective, and they felt well informed about any updates or changes to their loved one’s care and support.

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.
As part of the assessment, we reviewed the systems in place for staff to express their views. Staff had a range of opportunities to provide feedback, including team meetings, supervisions and daily handovers. One staff member told us, “Previously when we raised concerns, we felt like we were not listened too. People living in the home were able to attend resident meetings to feedback their experiences of the home. We saw evidence where residents gave feedback on the food menu for the home, from this feedback, the provider had made changes to the menu to respect people’s wishes.
We saw examples as part of the assessment that staff were consistently giving choice to people and listening to people’s feedback and adapting their approach based on feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The care plans we reviewed demonstrated effective partnership working with external professionals when required. The home had established strong collaborative relationships with district nurses to support a resident diagnosed with diabetes.
Staff engaged proactively with individuals, their families, and relevant professionals to ensure timely access to appropriate support. This approach enabled people to receive consistent, well‑coordinated, and person‑centred care in line with their assessed needs.

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 had completed training in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, enabling them to recognise, respect, and uphold each person’s individual characteristics. Systems were in place to ensure that people’s care, treatment, and support promoted equality, reduced barriers, and protected their rights.

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 plans we reviewed clearly documented people’s choices and decisions, and in some cases, individuals did not wish to discuss this and asked for a relative to act on their behalf. This was then clearly documented in the care plan. ReSPECT forms (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) were in place to ensure that people’s wishes for emergency care and treatment were documented, understood and followed. These plans were subject to regular review by the GP to ensure they remained accurate and reflective of each person’s current preferences.
Staff received training in end‑of‑life care and were passionate about ensuring individuals experienced the highest standard of comfort, dignity and support in their final days.