Eothen Residential Homes - Whitley Bay

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Care records we reviewed included information such as nutrition, mobility and clinical risks, and were regularly reviewed. However, records were not always sufficiently detailed or consistently maintained. We found examples where food and fluid monitoring records lacked detail and information was not always recorded consistently. Risk assessments and associated documentation did not always fully reflect people’s current needs or the support required to manage identified risks. The provider took immediate action to address these issues during the assessment. In addition, electronic record systems did not always support accurate recording time taken to provide care, which impacted the reliability of dependency assessments and staffing decisions.

Care and treatment was delivered in line with current best practice and supported by evidence-based tools. Staff used recognised guidance and tools to support people’s care and treatment, and there was evidence of appropriate referrals to other professionals when required. They consistently ensured people received care and treatment based on current evidence, good practice and innovation, which promoted positive outcomes and quality of life. Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to evidence-based practice and continual learning.

Staff actively participated in research partnerships with universities and national research programmes and used learning from these activities to improve care delivery. Staff adopted innovative approaches, including evaluating the impact of staff clothing on people’s experiences and using research findings to promote a more homely environment. The provider also demonstrated a commitment to learning from external best practice. Senior staff had visited innovative care services in the Netherlands and explored how successful approaches could be adapted to improve outcomes for people living at the service.

People’s healthcare needs were regularly reviewed and staff worked proactively with healthcare professionals to ensure they received appropriate treatment and support. The team had been awarded a ‘Diamond Award’ for improvements in the prevention, identification, escalation and response to deterioration. Staff promoted equitable outcomes by adapting support to meet individual needs. For example, staff worked closely with a national charity who supports sight loss and implemented specialist advice to support people with visual impairments to remain as independent as possible. Feedback from people and relatives consistently indicated staff understood their needs and responded effectively when changes occurred.

Staff, teams and partner organisations worked together to provide joined-up care that generally met people’s needs and promoted continuity of care. Staff worked closely with a wide range of healthcare professionals, including GPs, district nurses, frailty teams, therapists, pharmacists, dietitians and charities. People were promptly referred to healthcare professionals when concerns were identified, and their advice was incorporated into care delivery. For example, a person described feeling unwell overnight and said staff immediately contacted their GP for advice. Relatives consistently praised communication and said they were kept informed about any changes. Staff worked in partnership with local schools, churches, community groups, charities and research organisations to improve people’s experiences and maintain community connections. Staff understood the importance of collaboration and shared information appropriately to support continuity of care. A relative said, “Staff always keep us up to date with any small issues and changes in [person’s name] day-to-day care which I am grateful for.”

Staff supported people to maintain their health, independence and wellbeing and encouraged them to remain active and connected with their communities. People had access to healthcare services when needed and staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to monitor and respond to changes in health. Relatives told us staff identified concerns promptly and sought appropriate treatment when required. Staff celebrated people’s achievements and supported them to pursue interests that were important to them. For example, staff organised a celebration event for a person who had published a book.

The provider did not always effectively monitor outcomes and use information to drive improvement and ensure consistently good care. The registered manager’s quality assurance processes included regular audits of medication, infection control, and the care environment, with action plans being implemented promptly. However, these systems were not always effective in driving improvements. We found examples where risk assessments had not been reviewed promptly following incidents, food and fluid monitoring records were incomplete.

Staff told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and sought consent in day-to-day interactions. They understood the principles of the MCA and we observed them offering choices, seeking consent and respecting people’s decisions in day-to-day interactions. However, records did not always demonstrate that decisions had been made in accordance with the MCA. Capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not consistently completed where restrictions were in place, including where staff managed people's finances or where people required support when accessing the community. The electronic recording system did not provide sufficient evidence that all practicable steps had been taken to support people to make their own decisions before assessments of capacity were completed. Also, people with capacity were not completing records to show they consented to restrictions that were in place such as having staff with them on visits to the shops. The management team sought to address these shortfalls.