Finch Manor 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

Our rating has changed from inadequate to good. Staff tried to deliver a person-centred service to people however, this was, at times, impacted by a high turnover of staff. This meant it took time for people to get to know their staff team, and for staff to get to know people, and their preferences in care. Staff understood the importance of adapting their communication style to meet people’s individual needs. People understood how to raise a complaint, although not everyone felt it resulted in change. Peoples future care needs were known, including people’s preferences should they require care at the end of their life.

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.

We received mixed feedback whether people received person centred care. Some people felt staff knew them, and their preferences in care well and one family member commented, “The staff know [Name] very well. They can be very vocal; they are a character. They know [Name] doesn’t like [food type] and can be fussy with food so will always make an alternative for them.” However, other people felt they were not always supported by people who knew them, and their needs well due to an ongoing turnover of staff. Comments included, “The staff are nice but there’s such a high turnover of them, so they don’t know me like they used to” and “There are many different staff which is hard sometimes because they don’t always know what I need.”

Staff were able to describe what person-centred care meant and gave examples how they applied this when providing choice and ensuring people were happy with the care they provided. one staff member told us, “I will go into their wardrobe and ask them what they want to wear.” Staff also described how they understood if people were happy with their care, or expressing concern through their body language when assisting with activities or care.

We observed positive interaction between staff and people throughout our assessment. One person’s care plan described the level of communication they needed to be encouraged to mobilise, and we observed this guidance followed by staff.

People said they had access to healthcare from a range of health and social care providers when needed.

Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people and made sure people received coordinated and joined up care.

Healthcare professionals commented on the positive partnership working they had with the service. One spoke about how this had improved in recent months and told us, “I can see the new clinical lead and provider generally work together to meet resident's care needs by following professional advice, raising concerns in a timely way.”

Systems were in place to ensure people received continuity in relation to their health care needs. Referrals were made to other professionals when needed following changes in a person’s needs. Regular appointments were made for people to access services including chiropody.

Some family members told us they had been involved in developing peoples care plans and were able to share information through regular reviews. However, other family members, and people living in the service were not aware of the care plans in place. Comments included, “I was and am involved with [Name’s] plan of care” and “I haven’t seen my plan.”

Staff gave examples of how they adapted their communication style to meet people’s needs. For example, one staff member described using flash cards when people were unable to communicate their views. Staff ensured confidential records about people were stored securely and were aware of who they could and couldn’t share information with. One staff member said, “I only disclose on a need-to-know basis. I don't leave personal information laying around unattended.”

People had access to information about the service. Regularly updated newsletters were available to read. The service users guide was available in alternative formats, upon request. Some information around the home was conflicting and confusing. For example, written menus did not always match the information visible on menu boards and were different across the different units. This meant people were not always aware of what the meal options were. We shared this observation with the management team.

People told us they knew how to raise a complaint about the service or share feedback. Comments included, “I don’t know the manager, but I would tell the staff if anything was wrong” and, “It’s never happened, but I would speak to the girls.” Some family members told us they attended family and resident meetings and found them productive. For example, a suggestion to improve garden furniture was acted upon. Confidence in the effectiveness of the provider to deal with complaints appropriately was mixed. One person told us, “I have complained to the manager and things improve for a week and then go downhill again.”

Staff knew the actions they should take in response to a complaint being raised to them.

There were processes in place to enable people to speak up about the service. There was a complaints policy and information on how to complain was displayed. Records were maintained of formal complaints and compliments about the service which had been received, and the appropriate actions taken.

People told us they were able to access care, treatment and support when they needed it and gave examples of the different services which they were able to access.

Staff told us how people were supported to access external health professionals. This included visiting district nurses, and doctors as well as supporting people to access appointments at the local hospital.

Partners who worked with the provider told us people received care when they needed it.

People were able access care when they needed it. Records were maintained when people accessed support from other services. Where appropriate, important contact details were contained within care plans.

Most people and their family members were generally positive about the care they received from the staff team, although experiences differed across the different units of the home. For example, we received varied feedback about the ability of staff to respond quickly to people’s needs dependent on the unit people resided. This was, in part, due to the greater dependency of people who received care in bed. Whilst activities were available for people to participate in, the activity worker faced a challenge to ensure all people who were unable to participate received equal interactions to reduce the risk of social interaction.

Staff told us they encouraged people to engage in activities and opportunities when possible. When people were unable, then staff tried to ensure they interacted regularly with people. Comments included, “We do mini welfare checks, a carer will go in and sit with them, watch some TV or talk with them” and “I always go in when passing, speak with people several times a day, interact with them.” Staff we spoke with admitted this could be a challenge during times when they were busy providing care to people.

For people who were at the most risk of inequality in experience or outcomes, systems were in place to record information about people’s individual care and support needs, this included emotional support needs of people.

Family members told us they were kept involved and updated about people’s care. Some people had shared details about their plans for the future. This included end of life care wishes and whether they had chosen to have do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) order in place.

Staff received training around supporting people at the end of their life. Some staff told us they had experience of discussing future wishes with people and demonstrated a sensitive approach to this.

Care plans reflected peoples wishes and feelings regarding their care at the end of life. This included when a person had a DNACPR in place.