Veronica House 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 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 and relatives told us they were involved in planning their care and relatives said they were kept up to date with any changes. Staff told us they felt they were able to meet people’s changing needs. One staff member said, “I think it would be lovely if we could give everyone more time, but I feel we can meet peoples need and we do get to know people. I know people really well and would be able to describe any needs. For example, if someone was not themselves, I would know straight away, they become part of the family.” There were established systems in place to ensure people’s care needs were regularly reviewed and met their current needs.

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 registered manager told us the staff team worked alongside other health professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. Records we reviewed confirmed this, and reflected how staff had contacted external professionals for specific advice about people’s care. In-house specialists were also available and information was shared with them so people’s dietary and mobility needs could be assessed and care plans developed to support them. Care plans were stored electronically so staff across the home could view them, this helped staff provide continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff told us they used guidance contained in people’s care plans to ensure they were supporting people’s communication in the best way possible. One staff member told us they had learned about a person’s use of gestures which they used to communicate and were able to interpret what the person needed. The management team told us in their Provider Information Return (PIR) and we confirmed that signage was displayed throughout the home to aid orientation and communication.

The provider welcomed feedback and ideas, and systems were in place to support people to 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. A relative told us, “[Person] made a complaint and they listened.” A staff member said, “If someone made a complaint to me, I would explain I was going to report it and raise it further. I write it as an incident and contact the matron to let them know, I would also apologise and let the person know what I was going to do.” The management team sought feedback from each department within the home about each person’s care experience. For example, if a person had given negative feedback about meals, this was reviewed and considered. Resident and relative’s meetings took place to provide an opportunity for feedback and the registered manager told us they arranged these for various times in the month to provide the best opportunity for people to attend. In their Provider Information Return (PIR) the registered told us after receiving complaints about the high number of agency staff they had taken action to recruit permanent staff and had kept residents and relatives updated on progress made.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff told us, “We make adjustments to peoples care plan. For example, one person is using an electronic pad system to communicate. We also use online translation services as well as easy read care plans for people. Staff had received training in equality and diversity which enabled them to identify concerns in relation to accessibility.

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. One staff member told us, “We have training for equality and diversity and we adapt to the individual using our training systems. One person wanted to get a job, we used our training and did a risk assessment to help this happen. We know the individual and build the risk assessment around them.” There were systems in place to review people’s experiences of the care they received.

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. Relatives told us they were impressed with the care provided to their family members who were approaching the end of their lives. Staff told us there was guidance available in people’s care plans to ensure they delivered person centred end of life care. Although there was no one in receipt of end of life care at the time of our assessment the management team had systems in place to ensure people’s death was dignified. This included working in partnership with external healthcare professionals and ensuring anticipatory medicines were available to manage people’s symptoms when required.