Herons Park 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 remained 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.

People's care plans and risk assessments were personalised for each person, and information was kept up to date. Care documentation enabled staff to engage with people as they reflected people’s individual interests and preferences for communication support.

Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s care was person-centred and in line with national standards, resulting in effective support that reflected each person’s needs, and preferences in line with best practice guidance.

Activities were provided by 2 activity co-ordinators in line with people’s interests. There was a full and varied programme to meet peoples varied interests. These included trips out, quiz sessions, external visitors, cheese and wine days and sensory activities such as hand massages for people who were unable to leave their rooms. The activities co-ordinator told us she downloaded books to read to people with poor eyesight. The activities co-ordinator told us, “I read to 2 residents who have poor eyesight, one likes murder mystery books and the other likes physics books.”

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.

Staff worked collaboratively with families, volunteers and health professionals to ensure care was coordinated and responsive.People had access to health services to ensure and maintain good health and continuity of care. Care plans evidenced input from health professionals, such as GPS and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) team.

Care plans reflected people’s changing needs, for example, with their mobility, cognitive needs, and communication challenges, with regular reviews involving the people and their families where appropriate.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 all organisations which provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard (AIS) tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

Records showed the service met the AIS as care plans set out people’s communication needs and how staff should share information. Information could be provided in different formats if needed, to ensure people received and understood the content in a way that suited them.

Staff knew which people needed additional support with communication and were able to tell us how they met people’s communication needs, including for example, recognising facial expressions.

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.

Staff and managers listened to concerns and acted on them. Relatives said they felt comfortable raising issues and that staff responded promptly.

The provider regularly sought people’s views through surveys and meetings for people using the service and their families. There was a system in place for responding to any concerns or complaints if any were received. However, there were no complaints raised with the service within the last 12 months.

Staff also felt able to raise concerns or suggestions for improvement and said management listened and valued the staff input.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Information about people’s communication needs, cultural preferences, health conditions and any other factors which could increase the risk of inequality was gathered through initial assessments, regular reviews and ongoing conversations with people and their relatives.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the service and when people’s needs changed, records showed staff had referred people for appropriate specialist support and advice. Everyone was given equal opportunity’s to receive the care they needed promptly. This included being referred to health care professionals quickly if they became unwell, ensuring medicines were reviewed by the GP, and arranging appointments for people, for example, with SALT and district nurses

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. We observed staff treating people as unique individuals, using their preferred name.

The service was accessible to all, with reasonable adjustments made for individuals with physical, sensory, or cognitive needs. The premises were adapted with ramps, handrails, and accessible bathrooms. Staff supported people to access external services and community activities.

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.

People experienced kind, consistent care which promoted equality and inclusion, regardless of their needs or level of independence. Feedback gathered showed people felt safe, respected and well supported.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy. People's care plans were person-centred and set out aspects of people's characteristics, beliefs and preferences to ensure people's protected characteristics and needs were respected.

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 worked closely with people to make plans about their future care. For example, people and their families were involved in planning how they would like to be cared for at the end of their lives.

Care plans identified people's preferences at the end of their life and the service co-ordinated palliative care in the care home where this was the person's wish. Care plans contained information and guidance in respect of peoples' religious and resuscitation wishes. People had ReSPECT forms. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes are followed. People also had a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decision, also known as a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order, which were accessible to all staff and health professionals should a situation arise.