Pemberley Manor Care and 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

We found people were involved in planning for their care needs. People had access to health and social care, support and treatment when they needed it. There was a complaints system in place which allowed complaints to be effectively managed and monitored. People’s end-of-life care plans were limited in detail with most documenting that their end-of-life preferences had not been discussed.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were involved in planning for their care needs.

The manager told us peoples care plans were developed with them and their relatives to reflect their individual care and support need.

Staff appeared to be supporting people in line with their care and support needs.

People had access to integrated care when they needed it.

The manager told us people had access to health and social care services such as community nurses, the local authority falls and placements teams.

A visiting health care professional told us that people with complex needs were not always receiving the care they needed. Another health care professional told us whenever they suggested referrals onto other professions, e.g., Speech and Language Therapy they were always actioned.

Care records showed people were supported by health care professionals including a tissue viability nurse, speech and language therapist, GP, dietitian and a falls team. Community nurses were also attending the home to manage nursing needs of residents deemed as ‘residential’.

We saw information displayed throughout the service in large print or in picture forms. For example, menus were displayed in dining areas detailing what food was on offer.

The manager told us if people required information in suitable formats such as large print, a different language, audio, or visual aids this would be made available to them.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard 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.

People's communication needs were assessed and included in their care records. This ensured staff knew how best to communicate with people respectfully and effectively.

There was mixed feedback from people and their relatives about the providers complaints process. One person commented, “I would let my relative know if I had any concerns”. Another person said, “If I had concerns, I would speak with the manager”. Relatives’ comments included, “I’ve made complaints, and feel they don’t get dealt with”, and “The manager does make sure he does investigate, but more could be done”, and “Don’t know who to complain to, no posters to tell us – it is the non-communicating”.

The manager and regional manager showed us provider audits that were completed on a regular basis, and which monitored the management of complaints that were raised. The manager told us a satisfaction survey had recently been sent out to people using the service, relatives, professionals and staff. They were waiting for responses prior to assessing the feedback and drawing up an action plan.

There was a complaints system in place which allowed complaints to be effectively managed and monitored.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place, and this was accessible to people throughout the service. Complaints records showed that when concerns were raised, these were investigated and responded to appropriately. We saw records of complaints and correspondence between management and relatives. Any lessons learnt were shared with staff at meetings and supervisions.

People had access to care, support and treatment when they needed it.

The manager told us they made sure that people using the service could access the care, support and any treatment they need when they needed it.

A health care professional told us people had access to care, support and treatment when they needed it.

Care records showed had access to care, support and treatment when they needed it.

People told us they were involved in planning for their care needs. One person commented, “They asked me a lot of personal questions, some questions made me feel a bit uncomfortable.”

A member of the kitchen staff team told us about people’s food preferences and cultural requirements. Some people were vegetarian and pescetarian and some had halal meal preferences. They told us the manager and chef met with people to discuss their religious and cultural preferences.

People’s assessments are care plans did not always reflect their individual needs and wishes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored to their needs.

People were consulted and supported to make choices and decisions for themselves. However, care plans were not always completed detailing people’s end of life wishes and were not always reflective of their needs and preferences.

The manager told us they worked with people’s relatives, the GP and the local hospice to provide people with end-of-life care and support when it was required.

People’s care plans were not always person centred and their end-of-life care plans were limited in detail with most documenting that their end-of-life preferences had not been discussed.