St Mary's 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 the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans reflected their preferences and were reviewed monthly, or following any changes in their needs. However, in some cases these changes had not been reflected in all areas of people’s care plans, so sometimes care records appeared contradictory.

People’s comments included, “Yes, [staff] are very good.”, ”Yes, it’s alright. The staff are nice.” and “It’s nice, I am happy here.”

There was some provision for activities, although this was quite limited and needed further development. We asked people if they were given the opportunity to engage in activities or get out and about. Several people were unwell and did not wish to undertake group activities. One relative said, ”I don’t think there has been anybody (organising activities) for a few months. I haven’t seen anybody doing anything recently, but I am not around in the afternoons.”

There was no activity coordinator in post at the time of our visit. We spoke with a member of the care team who had been tasked with providing some activities for people until the post could be filled. They told us, “There are exercises in the residential side in the morning. There’s a lot of people who are cared for in bed. I will spend time with them one to one, do their nails or give them a massage. I ask people if they want me to play music or watch TV.” People’s feedback supported this.

Overall, people received care and support that was co-ordinated and everyone involved worked well together. People were in control of planning their care. If they needed help with this, people who knew and cared about them were involved.

Most people told us they were happy with the way they were looked after and, overall, we found people were supported well with their health care needs. Referrals had been made to various healthcare teams. One relative told us they had seen improvements in how the staff supported their relative as a result of the guidance they had received from one team.

Staff helped people to stay in touch with their family and friends, who were free to visit the home without undue restriction. Relatives told us staff were friendly, welcoming and supportive of them.

People could get information and advice that was accurate, up to date and provided in a way they could understand.

The provider worked to supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to people’s individual needs. People’s care records included guidance in relation to their communication needs, in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). This is a requirement of publicly funded providers to meet the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss.

Support was provided to people whose first language was not English to enable them to make choices. This included staff learning key words that were relevant to the person and the use of software applications that facilitated the conversion of speech from one language to another. Signage throughout the care environment was clear and supported people to access all areas of the home.

People knew how to give feedback about their care including how to raise any concerns. The provider had a complaints policy in place which was displayed in the home. People, and those close to them, were confident that if they complained they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. Any complaints or concerns were dealt with in an open and transparent way. They were explored thoroughly and people received a response in good time.

We asked relatives if the service kept them up to date about their family member’s welfare. Comments included, ”I come in nearly every day and talk to the staff. If [my family member] is unwell I know.” and ”I visit [my family member] a lot, I tend to talk to [staff member’s name] if I need to know anything. They have been here the longest and knows [my family member] well.”

People had equitable access to care, treatment and support because the provider complied with equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments. Overall, we found people had equity in accessing support in line with their needs. People had access to the equipment they required to keep them safe and comfortable. People and their relatives told us there were no restrictions on when people could receive visitors and relatives told us they were made to feel welcome in the home.

People and those close to them felt confident to give their views. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

The provider and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using the service. However, staff had little time to spend with some people outside of providing their physical care, and some people were left for periods with little interaction or stimulation.

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.

Staff received training in end of life care and felt they had the skills and understanding to provide people’s care and ensure they were pain free. We saw cards from relatives thanking staff for how they had cared for and supported their loved ones at the end of their lives.

Whilst people did not express any concerns regarding how staff supported them with planning the care they wished to receive at the end of their life, there was room to include further, personalised detail regarding their wishes, including how to help them to feel safe and comfortable during their final days.