Southborough Care 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 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. People and relatives told us they were fully involved in the planning and review of their or their family member’s care. A relative told us, “The care plan is spot on and I can see it at any time.” Another relative said, “As far as I know they always involve me with any decisions.” Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences. Our observations confirmed staff were caring in their interactions with people. However as stated in other sections of this report these interactions were mainly related to tasks.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The registered manager told us staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people received coordinated care. The registered manager told us, “We are very good at joined up care. We work with professionals and refer people to them straight away so they received the right support.” People’s records confirmed other professionals were involved in people’s care and support. A relative told us, “The [mental health team] is coming in as [family member] has dementia, the home is proactive to get them to come back as their dementia is progressing and they need a review.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Relatives told us staff communicated with them well about their family members care and support. A relative said, “They keep me up to date and are very good at keeping me updated, if I raise a concern they take me seriously.” The registered told us they were able to provide information in different formats if people required this and staff were aware of individual communication needs of people. A care plan recorded, “Turn down any noise when communicating with [person].”

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. People and relatives told us they were given opportunities to give feedback about their care and support. A relative said, “I am asked for feedback and what could be improved, when I make suggestions, they do listen to me.” The registered manager told us they obtained feedback from people and relatives. The records indicated this was last obtained in 2024 and the registered manager would be sending out more surveys this year. A complaints process was in place to respond to any concerns or comments. Minutes of resident and relative meetings were viewed, however some of the actions taken were handwritten and difficult to see if all feedback and been actioned.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Relatives were confident people had access to care and treatment options when needed. A relative said, “[Family member] gets more help medically wise here than at home.” Staff understood their responsibilities in supporting people to access the care, support, and treatment they needed. A weekly ward round was completed by relevant professionals so any health needs could be discussed. People had access to all areas of the service and relevant aids were in place to support with people’s mobility.

The provider had not always included people or discussed whether there were alternatives to the activities available at the service. Whilst we saw some people were occupied with the activities provided by staff, others were left to watch television with minimal interaction. Staff available were busy throughout the day responding to people’s needs and even though they tried their best to provide people with things to do we observed limited opportunity for some people during the assessment. Staff were committed to providing people with positive outcomes related to their care and treatment. A staff member said, “I would be happy for a relative to be here, people are well looked after. We often see a huge positive change in them.” Procedures were in place related to equality and diversity. People's diverse needs were recorded in their care plans, including any specific requirements they had. Staff gave us examples of how one person was supported to wear culturally appropriate clothing.

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. People were supported to make informed decisions about their future care and support. A relative said, “The community hospice service is involved and I am updated about [family members] end-of-life care.” Staff had received training in death and bereavement and the importance of following people’s choices and preferences at the end of their life. People’s choices and preferences were recorded within people’s care plans and this information was reviewed regularly.