Eastside House

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Some people had emotional and behavioural needs, but staff kept no behaviour charts or detailed records of behaviours or triggers. This increased the risk to people of inconsistent care, avoidable distress and inappropriate use of medicines.

However, there were positive aspects of care planning. People’s care plans were personalised and detailed. They included information about people’s lives, families, work history and what mattered to them, including sections such as “what are you most proud of?” Staff discussed care expectations with people’s representatives and contacted them during reviews to confirm agreement. Care plans described how people preferred their care and support to be provided.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff knew people well and provided care which reflected this understanding. The small, consistent staff team supported strong continuity of care, which helped staff recognise people’s routines, preferences and changes in need promptly.

This consistency also meant people were supported by familiar staff, which promoted trust, comfort and smoother day‑to‑day interactions.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. The service displayed minimal signage and no pictorial information, including for bathrooms, toilets and communal areas. There were no easy‑read complaints or safeguarding posters available. Despite this, staff and managers knew people and relatives well due to the small size of the service, which helped to maintain daily communication.

Meeting minutes were available as evidence of regular information sharing with people and representatives.

A relative we spoke to during the visit gave positive feedback, describing communication as excellent and expressing high confidence in the service and staff.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We saw meeting minutes showed staff gathered feedback from people covering wellbeing, health, menu planning and events. We saw positive feedback from relatives, friends, advocates and professionals, including a thank‑you card praising the care provided.

The provider had a complaints policy in place, and they had received no complaints. The registered manager told us any complaint would have been recorded in the incident book and managed in line with policy.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had equitable access to activities, and staff adapted communication so people could take part in those which matched their interests and abilities.

Staff supported monthly meetings with people they support, which enabled contributions to decisions about wellbeing, menus and events.

Care plans were updated promptly when needs changed, helping ensure people continued to access support safely.

Relatives gave consistently positive feedback, describing excellent communication, regular updates and good access to health professionals. They felt welcome at any time and knew staff and management well.

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. Staff considered information about people who may be at greater risk of experiencing inequality in their care or outcomes.

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.

Some people had end‑of‑life care plans, but the level of detail varied. Staff updated these plans when required. Staff clearly documented when a person had chosen not to discuss this aspect of their care. Staff documented ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ [DNAR] decisions.

Key workers completed monthly summaries for each person which informed their future support.