Magnolia House Residential Care 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans documented some of their preferences, including their preferred name. However, people told us they had not been asked whether they preferred to be supported by a male or female and had not been involved in their care planning.

We also found that some care plans had not been updated to reflect people’s current needs.

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.

We received positive feedback from healthcare professional who worked regularly with the service who described a proactive approach to people’s healthcare needs and a good working relationship with staff.

The provider did not always support people in a way that was tailored to individual needs.

Whilst care plans detailed people’s communication needs and guided staff on how best to share information with them, we found the home lacked signage to orientate people on where they were in the home. There was no distinguishing features to support people to find their way around or to find their own rooms.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We saw evidence of complaints being investigated and responded to in line with the providers policy. However, people told us they had no knowledge of any resident or relative meetings and did not receive any newsletter or email from the home with updates or seeking opinions.

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

The numbering of rooms could be difficult for people orientate themselves around the building and find the support they needed. However, we did have positive feedback about the support people received to access external healthcare and treatment when needed.

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.

A healthcare professional who worked closely with the service described how the service had supported people to achieve positive health outcomes, particularly around their diet, turning around low must (Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool) scores so much so people no longer needed fortified diets.

People were not always 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.

Relatives told they had been involved in making advanced decisions such as those documented on a ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) form.

However, they had not been involved in any additional care planning around people’s preferences and wishes towards the end of their life. People had ‘death and dying’ care plans in place, however these were not consistently person centred.