Partridge House Nursing and Residential 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 service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The service 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. Relatives told us, “They are very caring and understanding of people here,” and “It is more personalised and they are very caring.” Staff and management told us that Partridge House was first and foremost peoples home and therefore they were at the forefront of how the home was run and involved in decisions about their care. People able to access all areas of the home not confined to a floor or unit, all staff were responsible for supporting people, the home had a relaxed and friendly atmosphere.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The home worked closely with a number of health professionals involved in people’s care. The manager was receptive to advice and feedback from other professionals and used this to improve care. A health professional working with the service told us, “When we provide advice regarding a patient, we often ask for an update with up-to-date wound images and an assessment. A couple times we received updates from Partridge House with wound images that were taken prior to when last advice was given. I spoke to manager about this, and it seems to have been resolved now.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information regarding people’s communication needs were documented in their care plans. A relative told us, “[persons name] can talk but it's very difficult to understand what they are saying. They will point to what they want. I think staff spend so much time with her they understand what they want.” The manager told us that they had communication aids for people who were non-verbal, although not required at the moment, these had been used in the past, including picture cards to aid communication.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us they were asked for their views and felt listened to. Relative, resident and staff meetings took place and there were opportunities to feedback regularly. There was a ‘You said, we did’ board displayed which included comments and requests from people and what action had been taken in response. There was a complaints policy and procedure, we saw that concerns raised had been responded to promptly and thoroughly. The RM told us they had an open-door policy and we saw people and relatives popping in to speak to the manager to share information and ask questions. Relatives told us, “I would be 100% confident to raise concerns.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Relatives told us people were supported to continue to access the care and treatment they required outside the home. For example, for people with long term health conditions, the home worked with specialists and GP's to ensure care and support was provided. The home had clear systems in place to assess and review people's health and support needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The staff understood the importance of treating people fairly, regardless of any cultural, health or social differences. Some people lived with dementia or short-term memory issues, and we observed staff support them with patience and understanding. People responded positively to staff and seemed very happy and content to chat with staff when support was offered.

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. Relatives told us, “We have discussed this. I don't want her moved and she does have a DNAR in place,” and “When it comes to it, we preferred they die in the home and not in hospital.” The home had a designated end of life (EOL) care champion who provided workshops and training for staff. People and families were supported when people were approaching their end of life. There was a palliative care pathway, and information regarding people’s choices and wishes were clearly recorded in care records including how they wanted to spend their last days. For example, Do not attempt resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plans for EMERGENCY care AND Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were in place detailing peoples wishes and choices.