Eccleston Court Care Home

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 people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (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, well-being and communication needs with them or their families. People’s views were not captured and recorded to include reviewing information on their care plans. We found conflicting or insufficient information in care plans such as moving and repositioning care plans, medication plans and eating and drinking plans which could have meant people received the incorrect level of care, support and treatment. People and families told us the call bells were not always answered and needs were not responded to in a timely manner. However, staff told us that they speak to people and seek their preferences to ensure they are meeting people's preferences and wishes. Families told us that their loved one's needs are being met by staff.

The provider did not always evidence they planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We observed people not being supported with assessed nutritional support needs and staff were not trained to support people with a diagnosis of dementia. People’s observations after a fall were not always being undertaken effectively. However, families did tell us that they were involved in some discussions of planning but did not get to see care plans.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. We observed internal handovers were working well to include the daily flash meetings, these are daily meetings held with the management and staff team which shares up to date information with staff every day. We observed external health professionals visiting the service and feedback gained from partners complimented the providers work with partners. A person told us the later life team had been ‘brilliant’ with them.

The provider supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and utilised external services such as GP, opticians, tissue viability team, chiropodists and dietitian. People told us the menu was plentiful and nutritious, and they had plenty of snacks through the day. One family member told us their loved one was diabetic and had meals to suit and plenty of drinks. However, there was an observation made at one lunch time where a person receiving their one-to one support were not in receipt of this over lunch due to lack of staff.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. However, people’s views, and feedback was not captured and recorded as part of this formal review process. Some family members told us they were involved in care planning reviews and were asked questions about their relatives or loved one’s care and treatment, however, some family members told us they had not been involved in care planning and had not seen care plans.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Family members confirmed discussions were held with families, and we observed in some instances peoples wishes being respected by documenting these in care plans. Staff we spoke with all had a good understanding of gaining verbal consent and described what they would do if a person refused care. However, it was poorly recorded how people’s consent was assessed in the capacity assessment plans which had been undertaken.