Treetops 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

Person-centred care was promoted. We received positive feedback about the staff providing person-centred care and offering people choices. People spoke positively about their experiences at the service. People know who the management were and thought they are approachable. Staff knew people’s support needs and preferences well. People had positive experiences living at the service. People’s cultural needs were met. The service worked in partnership with other professionals to meet people’s needs.

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.

Person-centred care was promoted. We received positive feedback about the staff providing person-centred care and offering people choices. We noted positive observations of staff intervention and supporting people with kindness. People spoke positively about their experiences at the service. A person told us, “The staff are well-trained, friendly and helpful.” A relative added, “Staff seem really good.” We received mixed feedback about the food in the service, however, we were told different choices were always available. People knew who the management were and thought they are approachable. People told us, “The manager is easy to get along with and I have no complaints about anything” and, “The manager is nice, everything is alright here, I have no complaints.” People regularly saw professionals such as social workers.

Staff knew people’s support needs well. Any changes in people’s support or wellbeing were discussed in daily handovers. Staff said they were told when care plans were updated.

Staff knew people’s preferences well. We observed staff supporting people according to their needs and preferences. We saw staff knew people’s needs well and treated them as individuals. There was limited evidence people were involved in reviewing their care plans to ensure they remained current.

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.

People had positive experiences living at the service. One person told us, “I have a buzzer and generally they [staff] are quite quick [to respond].” People told us they had regular visits from professionals to support them with their care.

People’s cultural needs were met. Staff were aware of people’s cultural needs, for example some people had a halal diet.

The service worked in partnership with other professionals to meet people’s needs. Referrals were made to other medical services when required, for example the tissue viability nurse (TVN), dermatology and GP. The GP or advanced nurse practitioner completed a weekly visit to the home. People were supported by staff to access services such as the opticians. The service had an appropriate equality and diversity policy in place. Complaints had been responded to. There was an up-to-date complaints policy in place and the provider ensured the quality of care could be assessed, monitored and improved upon.

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