Castlethorpe 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 toRequires ImprovementThis 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. Care plans did not always contain sufficient information about people’s basic care needs. There was limited information recorded about people’s life histories. This meant staff did not always have the required information to ensure they were supporting people in line with their beliefs and preferences. Relatives told us that they were kept informed of any changes to care plans or medication. A relative said, "I get a call if anything needs to be changed."

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. However, people’s care plans did not consistently reflect their goals, skills, abilities or preferences for how they wished to manage their health.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider made information available throughout the service. However, the Accessible Information Standard had not been fully implemented. This standard ensures people receive information in a format they can understand and applies to individuals with disabilities, impairments, or sensory loss, and sometimes their carers. We found a lack of dementia-friendly signage to help people find communal areas or their rooms. Picture menus were not available to support informed choices. The manager confirmed plans to introduce these improvements following our visit.

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. We were told there were no resident meetings, but that surveys were available for people to complete. The manager had recently implemented these and planned to use the feedback to make improvements to the service. A relative told us "I can always call the office with questions. They get answered straight away."

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff were reactive rather than proactive. Referrals were made to health services when needed, though staff did not always work closely with healthcare professionals. For example, a person had been visited by occupational therapists and physiotherapists to develop an exercise programme designed to improve their mobility. Guidance to complete these exercises was in their bedroom. However, we saw no evidence that staff were supporting the person to complete the programme as directed. This affected the person’s feeling of wellbeing and emphasized their lack of mobility.

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. Care records contained limited information about people’s equality and diversity needs. Most individuals living at the home were older adults, many living with dementia. However, communication plans and guidance on how to involve people in expressing their needs and wishes were minimal. Assessments and care planning relating to people’s interests and preferred activities were not routinely completed. While processes existed to gather feedback from people, relatives, and staff about their experiences, this information was not used effectively to improve outcomes.

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. End of life care plans did not always contain enough information to guide staff how to care for them. This meant they may not have information to meet the person’s needs effectively and compassionately. Other care plans examined did not have this section completed at all, indicating that end-of-life planning is not consistent within the service. These findings raise concerns about the adequacy and reliability of end-of-life care planning, which is essential to ensure dignity, comfort, and support for people at the final stage of life.