Marigold 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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. Staff did not always respond in a timely way to ensure people’s needs were met in a timely way, such as ensuring they received the treatment they needed.

This service scored 54 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. There were numerous examples where people did not receive personalised and timely care. For example, a person had not been referred to a health professional to provide treatment they needed.

The provider had started to decorate a person’s bedroom months prior to our inspection but had not completed the work. This meant the person was unable to hang up their personal belongings that were important to them. Although these were addressed during the inspection, the provider had not been proactive in resolving these earlier. A relative commented, “On the whole it is okay but they (people) need more personal attention.”

Some people were not provided with the specialist equipment they needed to allow them to have a pleasurable lunchtime experience. In some cases, staff were not aware of people’s individual needs.

Some daily care records, such as oral health care charts, were not fully completed to confirm people had received personal care when they needed it.

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.

We saw and were told about situations where people had not been supported to access the care they needed in a timely way.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was available in various formats when required. People had specific communication care plans, which described the support they needed with making decisions.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed. Relatives told us communication had deteriorated since the registered manager left in December 2024. A relative said, “The previous manager sent regular emails and was often available in the evenings. There have been no formal communications since [registered manager] left.”

The provider had a complaints process to deal with any concerns raised about the service.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff were always on hand to provide care and support. However, staff told us there were periods during the day when staffing levels were stretched and impacted on people’s care. A staff member told us, “Staffing levels are generally adequate, but during busy periods, especially mornings when multiple residents need extra support, things can feel quite pressured. A few additional team members would help us provide more personalized attention without feeling rushed.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. The shortfalls in care meant people were not always experiencing good outcomes. There had been inconsistent management and leadership to monitor quality and ensure people were receiving the care they needed quickly.

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 had care plans which described any preferences they had for the future.