Tollesby Hall 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

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 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 was good at making 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 and support were personalised and responsive to people’s individual needs and interests. People’s needs were regularly reviewed, and staff worked in close partnership with people, relatives and relevant professionals to make changes.

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.

Staff had built up good levels of trust and understanding with people. This meant people received a good continuity of care from the provider. Staff advocated well for people. People’s care and treatment consistently met their assessed needs.

People had access to community health practitioners, such as, GPs, dentists, district nurses and other professionals when needed. Care records evidenced appointments and visits taking place.

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

Guidance was available in people's care plans which documented how people communicated. Information was accessible and was made available in a way to promote the involvement of the person. Records gave guidance about people’s daily routines if they could not tell staff themselves. People were consulted individually, and meetings took place with people and families to obtain feedback about people's experiences.

The provider encouraged 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.

Regular meetings took place for people and relatives to share their views and receive updates about changes at the service.

People and relatives told us staff, and the management were approachable, and they would feel comfortable in approaching them to raise a concern or complaint. Complaints were appropriately investigated and responded to.

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

People were supported by staff who understood their needs well. Staff escalated health and wellbeing matters and sought advice regularly. People received the additional health support they needed from a range of external health and social care professionals.

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.

Policies and procedures were in place in relation to equity, equality and diversity. Feedback and observations supported the fact that staff had implemented learning, and a culture had been created of individualised care. People’s care records showed how staff ensured people’s human rights and protected characteristics were included and protected. Care plans included information around people’s identity, things important to them, their wishes and relationships they wanted to maintain.

Staff knew how to ensure people’s rights were protected and there was an inclusive and supportive atmosphere in the home, no matter what health or dementia related need people may have. Staff ensured people who could not advocate for themselves had good experience of care.

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.

The service had a separate palliative care unit. People’s wishes to remain at the home were respected when they neared the end of their life.

People’s care plans included information about what kind of care and support they wanted for when they neared the end of their lives.

Staff received training in caring for people at the end stages of their lives and were aware of good standards of care.

The service had recently been awarded the Gold Standards Framework (GSF) Platinum Award. This is awarded to organisations that show sustained excellence in end-of-life care. The manager and staff were very proud of their achievement.

GSF Accreditation serves as a benchmark of excellence, demonstrating that an organisation has embedded high-quality end-of-life care practices. The GSF Platinum Award demonstrates a commitment to sustained excellence and the GSF Quality Hallmark Award acts as a kitemark for organisations that uphold the highest standards of care.