Home of Comfort 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 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.

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. However, people’s changing needs were supported.

We have outlined the concerns we found about person-centred care in the caring domain of this report. People, staff and partner agencies said regular staff understood people’s needs well. 1 professional said, “Staff are highly knowledgeable about the residents in their care.” However, some people told us agency staff did not know them so well which we have reported on in the safe domain.

Some areas of people’s care plans were detailed and personalised whilst others were not and contained conflicting information, increasing the risk of people receiving inconstant support. The registered manager told us they were working on these.

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.

The provider worked well with multi-disciplinary teams to ensure people received joined-up care. Partner agencies told us this worked well to ensure people’s needs were met.

To help provide continuity in care, handover meetings were held when shifts changed. This meant staff were aware of people’s changing needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information on how to communicate with people was documented in care plans. However, we found for 1 person this guidance was not followed. Although staff told us they could communicate with this person and recognise their needs through their body language and the tone of sounds, we observed this was not the case on 2 occasions.

Some people had dementia which may require information being presented in different ways to support their understanding. However, we did not see any measures being provided such as visual aids. This meant we could not be assured people could understand information given to them. A staff member told us some staff spoke in a language that was not people’s first language and although they said this was improving, 1 person told us, “Sometimes, I don’t understand them [staff] and they don’t understand what I’m asking for.” This increased the risk of people’s health and wellbeing needs not being met. Following the inspection, the registered manager told us of their plans to improve communication with people.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas.

The provider took complaints seriously, investigated and provided a timely response. Learning was taken from complaints, and they were used to improve the service. However, records showed other feedback received through surveys was not always acted on. For example, some people had provided feedback that said they could not always make day to day choices. When we spoke with the registered manager about this, they assured us they would undertake work to address this.

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

People were supported to access health care support when they needed it. This included in an emergency.

People’s access to care, support and treatment was not consistently audited. Staffing levels were not always sufficient, particularly during the night. People were checked on every hour, but consideration had not been given to people who could not use a call bell and may need support in between these times. This meant there was an increased risk these people may not be able to access care when they needed it.

The registered manager told us all people needed support to access the garden or go outside. However, there was no evidence people had been supported to do so. For example, 1 person told they would like to go out but had not been able to.

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.

Staff had received training in equality, diversity, and inclusion however, training was not always embedded in practice to promote equitable practice. As a result, people who may be more likely to experience inequalities did not consistently receive care and support that met their individual needs. For example, people with dementia or who stayed in their rooms were not provided with meaningful personalised engagement activities and staff did not always adapt their communication approaches which meant people were less able to express their preferences or make decisions.

However, people were supported well to ensure their health needs were met and staff ensured they were not discriminated against in relation to their health needs due to their age or disability.

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.

Care plans outlined people’s needs and wishes in relation to end of life care. Anticipatory medicines were prescribed for people deemed to be at end of their life, which ensured their care was anticipated.

Staff told us how they supported people to have a pain free and dignified death.