Andover 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 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 made 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 plans documented people’s preferences for how they liked to spend their day. When the plans referred to a person liking watching TV or listening to music for example, the person’s preferred TV programmes and type of music was listed.

People had access to a wide range of activities, we observed people engaged in activities throughout the inspection. All people were given an activity plan with a detailed list of activities taking place each day. People told us they were happy with the variety.

Where people were autistic or had a learning disability there was limited evidence of how their views, opinions and choices were captured; however, we could see care plans did highlight their preferences to support them to be in control of their own lives.

The provider understood the health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People’s choice was evidenced throughout the inspection. People and their relatives told us, and documents demonstrated, people had access to appropriate healthcare when required and showed staff fully engaged with the process.

Where autistic people and people who had a learning disability were being supported, the registered manager had involved the learning disability team to help mitigate or remove barriers to care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were assessed and when people experienced difficulties with hearing or speech for example, care plans informed staff of any technology people used to stay connected with friends and family. People were supported to access support services such as opticians. Information was available in large print for those who required it.

For autistic people and people who had a learning disability, records detailed how they communicated including consideration to the environment to improve the chances of a positive engagement, for example, supporting people to a quieter environment. Facial expressions and body language was also used to support communication.

The provider made it easy for 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.

People and most relatives told us they knew how to complain and felt confident any complaint would be dealt with swiftly and to their satisfaction. We reviewed the providers complaints log, we could see complaints were looked into, responded to and lessons learned were shared with the staff team.However, 2 relatives told us they had concerns with how their complaints had been managed.

Autistic people or people with a learning disability had care plans in place which detailed how they demonstrated they were not happy with a situation or were not consenting to, for example, personal care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People with protected characteristics were supported to have equitable access to services. For example, people with a disability which impacted their ability to leave the home were supported to access health services to meet their individual needs.

We reviewed records, they showed people were referred to health professionals for advice when required and this advice was included within people’s care plans.

Each person had up-to-date summaries of their care needs in place. This could be shared with other professionals to reduce potential barriers to care within the health and social care system.

Staff and leaders 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.

People were not discriminated against. When people did not have English as their first language the care plans informed staff if people were able to make themselves heard and understood. People’s cultural needs were respected, such as religious dietary requirements.

Staff and relatives gave us examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service. One relative told us, “My relative is so much better since moving into the home, the staff have clearly responded to the needs they had on admission.” One person told us, “I didn’t cope at home, I feel better here with staff to care for me.”

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.

End of life care was managed in a positive way. We observed people were supported to have their wishes met at the end of their life. We saw advanced care plans were in place, which showed staff had been having conversations with people about the kind of care they wanted at the end of their life, including whether they wanted to be admitted to hospital and any spiritual needs. Where people were autistic or had learning disabilities, we could see relatives had been involved in these discussions.