Eeze Care London

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 provider 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 needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At our previous assessment, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to person-centred care. At this assessment, enough improvement had been made, and the provider was no longer breaching this legal regulation.

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 choices. Staff supported people to plan their own care. Each person had a detailed support plan and guidance. People were able to contribute their views about this. People were assigned a key member of staff who helped to plan and review their care. They had regular meetings together to discuss how well the service was working for them.

The provider was responsive when people’s needs changed. Comments from external professionals included, “It’s commendable that the service shows responsibility and commitment to providing the promised care”, “Staff know people well” and “Staff generally meet the needs of people. Sometimes in difficult circumstances.”

The provider was able to demonstrate how their personalised approach had made a difference to people’s lives and wellbeing. For example, explaining how they had worked with 1 person who had been resistant to care and had not trusted staff when they moved to the service. Through personalised support and communication, they had reduced restrictions and reliance on staff. The person had developed new skills and was pursuing interests in the community, something they previously found challenging.

The provider organised a range of different groups and social events for people to participate in if they wanted. These included day trips and holidays. People explained they enjoyed these and looked forward to the different activities.

People were supported by familiar staff who knew them well. Staff worked closely with other professionals to ensure people received continuity of care. People were able to access the care and support they needed both at the service and in the community. Staff, people using the service and relatives had access to out of hours support when they needed this.

People had information about the service and their care and support. They were given easy to read guides and summaries of their own care plans, how to make a complaint and other key information. Managers assessed people’s communication needs. They created personalised care plans to show how people communicated and how staff should overcome any barriers to this. Staff completed a range of training to understand how to use equipment or tools people needed to communicate. They also learnt the sign language some people used. A person explained, “Staff understand me, some understand [my sign language] and if they don’t, then they write things down and I also write things down.”

Throughout people’s homes, staff provided signage, written and pictorial information. Following feedback from people using the service, the provider had improved and increased the amount of easy to access information for people.

Relatives told us they were well informed and were involved in planning and reviewing people’s care when this was what they wanted and it was appropriate.

There were systems to ensure the provider listened to and involved people. People took part in regular meetings to discuss the service with each other. These were used to plan important group events and activities. People also took part in individual meetings and reviews of their own care. The provider had acted on feedback from people and made changes to the service because of this. Comments from relatives included, “They listen to [person]” and “There is honesty and transparency at all times.”

People were invited to meet potential staff as part of the recruitment process. They shared their feedback about these staff and managers observed how new staff interacted with people.

There was a complaints procedure. People were aware of this and knew what to do if they had a complaint or concern. The provider had investigated complaints and taken appropriate action to learn from these.

Staff ensured people experienced seamless care and were able to access the services they needed. For example, ensuring people had support to access healthcare services. Staff advocated for people and ensured healthcare partners made reasonable adjustments. A relative explained, “I’ve seen how staff interact with people and it’s about respecting people as individuals and making sure they have the best possible life opportunities.”

People were supported to access college, jobs, volunteering work and leisure facilities in the community according to their individual needs and wishes. An external professional explained, “Staff work hard to encourage people to engage. For example, the in-house college, an annual trip to [a leisure park], and a weekend away to a caravan park a couple of times a year.”

Managers explained about the experiences for some people who had moved to the service in an emergency and had not been mentally well enough to take part in different activities. They explained that through support and personalised care they had enabled people to feel safe and have fulfilling lives, experiencing things they had previously found too daunting. This included learning new skills and spending time out of their home in busy crowded places.

Staff supported people to have equity in experience and outcomes. They undertook training about equality and human rights. Support plans included information about people’s personal history, interests and goals.

Staff assessed and planned for people’s diverse needs. People experienced good care and support because staff actively removed barriers people faced.

Staff supported people to plan objectives and think about their future. Some people were supported to work towards greater independence. Key staff supported people to set their own goals including long term plans. These were regularly reviewed. Managers told us about some people who had moved on to new homes following improvements in their mental wellbeing, health and developing independent living skills.

No one was being cared for at the end of their lives at the time of our assessment. The service was not designed for this type of care.