Archived: Chorlton Place 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.

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 did not consistently ensure that individuals were central to decisions regarding their care and treatment. Further improvements were necessary to ensure care records were genuinely person-centred, accurately reflecting individuals’ choices, preferences, and support requirements. In some instances, care records did not demonstrate meaningful involvement from individuals in the planning of their care. Additionally, some people and their relatives reported difficulties in reviewing care records following the implementation of the provider’s digital care system.

Daily care notes were often task-oriented and lacked personalisation. There was not always evidence of baths and showers being offered. While the provider had acknowledged this issue and identified care planning as an area for improvement, similar concerns regarding the lack of personalisation in records were noted at our last assessment. Care records were reviewed monthly as part of the ‘Resident of the Day’ process.

The provider was committed to understanding the diverse health and care needs of people living at Chorlton Place Nursing Home. Staff were able to articulate the specific support required by each person. Relatives were encouraged to take an active role in their loved ones’ care.

The provider engaged with Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), GP’s, community teams and hospitals to ensure people’s health and social care was coordinated.

The provider ensured people received appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information in formats tailored to their specific communication needs. Information was made accessible through large print materials and translated documents for those whom English was not a first language. To further enhance communication, the provider employed multilingual staff who were able to engage effectively with individuals from diverse linguistic backgrounds.

Communication preferences were documented within care plans, enabling staff to adapt their approach and promote meaningful interactions. Where people used pictorial aids, gestures, or body language to communicate, staff were familiar with these methods and responded sensitively and appropriately. The well-being coordinator contributed to engagement by sourcing and providing large print reading material.

Clear guidance was provided to people and their families regarding how to raise concerns or share feedback. Care records were securely maintained on electronic systems, with access restricted to authorised personnel, ensuring confidentiality and data protection compliance.

The provider encouraged feedback and ideas and listened to people when they raised complaints.

Most individuals and their relatives expressed that they felt comfortable raising any concerns with the provider. We saw complaints were acknowledged and responded to promptly. Where complaints were raised, investigations were carried out, and outcomes were shared with staff at the earliest opportunity to support learning and improvement.

All complainants received a written response outlining the findings and actions taken.

The provider ensured that people had prompt and appropriate access to the care, support, and treatment they required. Access to services was facilitated through timely interventions by community healthcare teams. General Practitioners (GPs) made suitable referrals for outpatient consultations, and hospital admissions were prioritised.

The service was fully accessible, equipped with essential aids and adaptations, including walking frames, wheelchairs, and fire evacuation sledges to support safe and effective care delivery.

A 24-hour on-call system was in operation, offering continuous access to guidance and support for both staff and people living at the home.

Staff and leadership demonstrated an understanding to the needs of people most at risk of experiencing inequality in care outcomes.

The provider had facilitated staff workshops focused on fostering teamwork and cultivating kind, respectful, and inclusive behaviours. An upcoming session was planned to develop a team charter, enabling staff to collectively define their shared goals and what actions staff will commit to. These sessions also explored cultural awareness and the importance of understanding diverse backgrounds.

Engagement with advocacy groups was evident, particularly those representing individuals who may be underrepresented or who require additional cultural or linguistic support.

No concerns were raised regarding discrimination or inequality from people and their relatives.

People were supported to plan for significant life transitions, including end-of-life care, with sufficient time to make informed choices about their future.

Most people and their families reported being involved in discussions around end-of-life care planning. Health professionals contributed to conversations concerning advanced decisions and resuscitation orders. Staff received training in end-of-life care, and personal wishes such as preferred care approaches, religious beliefs, and cultural practices were documented in care plans. However, one relative told us they would have liked to have been more involved in the process. Staff demonstrated awareness of individuals’ advanced preferences and aimed to uphold these respectfully and sensitively.