Abbey Ravenscroft Park 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 assessed a number of quality statements in the Responsive key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. We identified a breach of the legal regulations. Some people’s care plans were not always up to date as they did not always recognise and reflect their individual needs and personal preferences. Some care plans did not always set out people’s end of life care arrangements. We saw staff being attentive to people’s care needs, but there were missed opportunities to promote people’s interests and wellbeing.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives mostly spoke positively about the care people received. A person told us, “I am happy that I can say what I want the way I want – [there’s] no problem with staff listening.” A relative stated, “I love how much attention they give [the person]. They speak with them like [the person] can understand.” However, some people’s care plans were not always accurate or up to date. For example, a person was supported to use an accessory to help them avoid scratching themselves but this was not recorded in their plan. Some plans did not provide sufficient guidance or detail on how to provide person-centred care to them. For example, some plans had information about people’s personal histories, cultural backgrounds and languages they used to communicate, but did not use this to make practical plans to provide personalised care to them. The care plans for people who received one to one care did not always set out how a person was to be supported proactively and engaged with throughout the day.

The provider was in the process of updating the care plans for people received one to one support so these provided more detail and direction for staff on how to support the individuals in a person-centred way.

We saw people who expressed dementia distress not being supported in ways to try and reduce this distress. Managers had not considered other resources to promote a dementia friendly care experience for people. People’s past interests and passions were known but no work had started to try and promote these, in order to support people’s wellbeing.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We found people’s care plans did not set out their wishes and care preferences should they become seriously ill suddenly or at the end of their life. There was not always evidence that the service had worked with people and their relatives, or used the personalised information known about people’s background or preferences, to inform such planning.

Staff completed training on providing end of life care and the provider explained how the service works with health care professionals to provide palliative care to people. However, the provider had not always implemented their processes effectively to ensure people were always provided with good end of life care planning.”