Ruislip 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 service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. People received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their choices. People were supported to access other community and healthcare services, and the staff worked with others to provide continuity of care. There were effective processes for listening and involving people as well as sharing information. The provider responded to complaints and learnt from these. People’s human rights were respected, and they were treated with equity and respect.

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.

People received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. They told us they were treated well and supported to meet their individual needs. People were involved in developing and reviewing how their care was planned. They were able to make decisions and felt supported to access different services.

People received joined up care because the staff worked with others. People were able to see other professionals when needed and the staff supported them to access other services. The provider shared information with people and their families about different services that were available.

People were given information about the service. There was general information on display in bedrooms and communal areas about the service, how to make a complaint, activities on offer, staff and menus. The provider also sent information to people using the service and other stakeholders in the form of newsletters and by holding meetings. They shared guidance and good practice information, for example leaflets about good nutrition, hydration and the importance of supporting people to have mental stimulation. Information was produced in different formats for people who needed this. For example, using pictorial prompts. The registered manager told us all information could be made available in different languages if needed.

The provider listened to and involved people. They organised regular meetings for relatives and people living at the service. They also asked people to complete surveys about their experience. These were analysed and the provider created action plans when improvements were needed. Responses from surveys and other feedback showed people were happy with the service. There was a suitable complaints procedure, and people told us they knew how to make a complaint. Complaints had been investigated and acted on to help improve the service.

People could access the support and treatment they needed. The provider made adjustments to the environment and planned care to reflect people’s individual needs. They liaised with different community and faith groups who provided support. The provider also helped people to access services outside the home, booking taxis and helping people to access places of worship. One visitor told us how the staff had supported a person to connect with others from the same faith around the world using the internet.

The service promoted equality and staff helped to make sure people received good, personalised outcomes. The provider employed staff to take lead roles learning about a specific area of care and support. They then shared this information with other staff and this helped to enable all staff to provide care which met people’s needs and respected their human rights. People told us they did not experience discrimination at the service. People living at the service at the time of our assessment included those with sensory needs, mental health needs and physical disabilities. Care was planned to help overcome barriers to accessing services and to involve people in making decisions about their care and treatment.

People were supported to plan for the future. The staff helped them to create end-of-life care plans which outlined their wishes and needs. People were supported to stay living at the service when their health deteriorated. The staff took part in end-of-life training. They worked closely with palliative care teams and community nurses. Care plans were updated and adjusted to make sure they reflected any deterioration, and that staff had the information they needed to give people personalised support when they were at the end of their lives. People were supported to make plans for the future to move to different services if this is what they wanted. For example, the provider liaised with the person and other professionals to help identify how this could happen.