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 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.

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. The provider acknowledged people’s preferences when needs changed, ensuring that care was personalised and reflected their wishes. Relatives told us staff checked what people wanted and supported independence, for example with personal care routines and monitoring. A relative said, “The home has come on in leaps and bounds. It’s person-centred”.

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 with relevant professionals to support people to receive consistent care.People’s records showed regular input from health professionals, including routine GP input and visiting clinicians.

 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider shared information with people and those close to them in ways that supported involvement and provided reassurance. Menu choices were displayed in the dining room on a whiteboard, and the manager told us they planned to include photos of meals in the future. Signs on people’s bedroom doors reflected their interests and personalities. People told us they received updates by text or email or a phone calland said the sharing of information had improved.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaintsabout their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Complaints were logged and managed in line with the provider’s policy. People were offered surveys to feedback their experience of the service, although this had been a recent initiative with no information yet available to inform improvement. However, not all people we spoke to had been involved in this process. People and their relatives described being asked for input into reviews and care planning, including telephone involvement. A family member said, “Recently I was asked for input to a review over the phone.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Relatives told us services such as an optician and dentist visited the home to support people if this was required. Arrangements were in place for staff to escalate concerns when management was not on site using an on-call rota, for which the management team shared responsibility.

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 supported people who received care in bed to participate in activities to promote inclusion. Feedback from people described improved and engaging activities that people enjoyed. However, one visitor told us their friend “has nothing to do” and did not join activities, which suggested outcomes were not consistently achieved for everyone.

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.The provider had some arrangements for future planning, but we found this was not consistently understood or in place for everyone. Some people had planning discussions recorded, including a relative describing a “RESPECT” form and preferences about hospital admission. However, another person said they did not know what end-of-life provision was, and care planning documentation showed at least one person had no RESPECT form in place. This showed a lack of consistency in relation to future planning, with outcomes not always clear for people and those close to them[.