Heanton 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

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, mostly in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were detailed and personalised giving staff the information they needed to support people in the most effective and caring way. When people’s needs changed, or any advice was given by a health professional, records had been updated to reflect changes. Some relatives were aware of care plans and had been involved in reviews and updates. However, other relatives said they were not consulted about their family members’ care and support plans. The registered manager was working to improve communication with relatives and friends to better involve them in planning and reviewing their relatives care. A regular newsletter was being developed with updates and information about the service, the staff team and future plans.

People received care that met their needs. Where they could, people told us staff provided care that met their needs. Comments included, “I wouldn't be anywhere else.” Relatives were happy with the care provided to their family member and felt staff treated people as individuals. A relative said, “The carers are very, very nice, chatty, friendly and very caring. There is always a carer or 3 around to look after the residents and they are always doing something to keep residents entertained.” Another relative described how a staff member had been “fantastic” with their family member, “My (family member) is ex-forces...a carer is ex-forces and (family member) responds to them well as they spoke with him in an army-type way."

Several overseas staff worked at the service. The provider had developed an Anglo-Indian dictionary to help overseas staff understand some of the common terms and language people may use that they would not be familiar with. This assisted staff when communicating with people.

People took part in a range of enjoyable social and leisure activities. Staff understood their individual interests and helped them to pursue these when possible.For example, 2 people loved to paint. Staff ensured they had the time and materials to enjoy this hobby. The provider employed an activities coordinator who organised a range of different events and activities. These included helping people to maintain skills and coordination, as well as having fun.

Throughout our visit to the service, we observed respectful, compassionate, person-centred care. Staff had a consistent approach with people and always supported individuals at their pace and in a way they preferred. One staff member said, “I think there is love for the residents and we make them feel loved and wanted and that they have a purpose, and we make sure the people that want to can still do things.”

The service 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 and their relatives were happy with the care and support provided. Feedback from relatives included, “I feel the carers look after my (family member) very well indeed.” A relative said “My (family member) is doing very well, I am very pleased with Heanton. She is very happy and busy doing things.” Another relative told us, “I feel they (staff) all know their jobs and they know the foibles and the likes and dislikes of all the residents.”

The management team worked with other agencies and professionals to ensure people had continuity in care and understood people’s needs well. People were supported to access the community both for social opportunities and for external healthcare professional appointments or reviews.

The staff team supported people to access shops and leisure facilities when they wanted this. Families were welcome to visit at any time and were able to be involved in care or have a meal with their family member. We saw relatives were given a warm welcome by staff and always offered refreshments.

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

People we spoke with did not always know about the formal complaints process but told us they knew how to raise a concern and felt confident this would be addressed. People told us they had no current concerns or worries.

Similarly, not all relatives were aware of the complaints process, but told us they would speak with the managers in the office, or a staff member should they have any concerns. Where a relative had raised a concern, they felt this had been resolved to their satisfaction. A copy of the complaint’s procedure was displayed on notice boards near the office. Information was available in alternate formats should people or their relatives require this.

The provider had notice boards which were updated to give staff, visitors and people information about different conditions and areas of interest. Menus were displayed and there was good signage to help people orientate themselves around the building.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Residents and relatives’ meetings were held on occasion where people could raise topics that mattered to them and were provided with updates about the service. The service used feedback from people to make changes. For example, following comments from people about menus and activities, new alternatives were offered.

Staff had regular meetings and had the opportunity to feedback any concerns or queries at any time. Staff felt the registered manager and management team were approachable, listened, and mostly acted upon their concerns or ideas. Staff told us about various projects they had suggested to the management team to enhance people’s daily lives. For example, staff requested funds to develop the courtyard, and this was granted for the summer to make improvements. They also wanted funds to develop a library, which was also supported. Staff and people using the service went to buy books for this project and one person helped to paint the new library space.

Systems were in place to gain feedback from people, relatives, professionals and staff. Quality assurance questionnaires were used to obtain feedback about the service. Some relatives said they had not received questionnaires. We fed this back to the provider to ensure people were given every opportunity to share their experience.

Complaints were logged, responded to and actions were identified to improve the service.

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

People had access to the care, support and treatment they needed. We saw examples where staff had ensured people living with various conditions had the access they required to specific care and support. For example, diabetes or Parkinson’s disease specialist.

Care records included information around people's communication needs and where people needed additional support, this was provided. For example, staff ensured people had their hearing aids and glasses to hand. This helped promote equality and removed any potential barriers.

We received positive feedback from external health professionals about the timeliness of referrals made to them. This meant people could still experience positive outcomes as people living outside of residential and nursing services.

Activities were adapted for people’s changing needs, as some people had more complex needs which prevented them from participating in group activities. Some people spent most of their time in their room. Staff engaged and chatted with people during the day, however 2 relatives wanted to see more one-to-one activity for people who were cared for in bed. The registered manager told us they would continue to work on adapting activities to ensure an inclusive approach and experience for all people.

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. One professional told us, “Heanton provides support to people that many other providers find challenging, and our experience is that the prompt and timely action by staff at the home facilitates our support to the Hospital Discharge Team, in ensuring that placements can be made quickly and safely.”

People felt well supported and treated fairly. This was echoed by relatives. Comments included, “They (staff) are caring, the slightest thing and they are there to assist” and, “They (staff) seem to know my (family member) well and he seems to recognise them, he smiles when he sees them…”

People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them. A relative told us, “There are no restrictions, I generally arrive in the morning and stay all day, they are all very good here.” No visiting restrictions were reported by relatives.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity, acknowledging diversity and valuing differences. They felt well supported by their colleagues and management.

Staff and relatives confirmed they had not witnessed or experienced any occasions whereby they had felt people using the service were discriminated against, nor had they witnessed people not having their basic human rights met.

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’s wishes regarding their end of their life care were discussed with them when they felt able to talk about this sensitive subject. Treatment Escalation Plans (TEP) were in place, which recorded important decisions about how individuals wanted to be treated if their health deteriorated. This meant people’s preferences were known in advance, so they were not subjected to unwanted interventions or admission to hospital at the end of their life, unless this was their choice.

Staff had training to understand how to provide sensitive, person-centred care at the end of life. They worked with external professionals to monitor people’s needs and to make sure appropriate changes and adaptations were made when people needed these.