Eunha Healthcare Ltd

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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.

Whilst all people had a care plan in place, these did not always reflect their care and support needs accurately, or in enough detail. We addressed this with the provider during our inspection, whoacknowledged care plans required improvement and did update people’s records, however it had not been identified that this information was missing prior to our inspection.

People’s care plans did not always include information about protected characteristics, specific information about a person’s religion or their sexual orientation. This meant staff did not always have guidance on how to support people in the way that mattered to them.

There was mixed feedback regarding people and their relatives having access to their care plan. Whilst some people told us there were care plans they could access, some relatives were unsure. One person told us, “I have my original care plan in my home.” However, a relative said, “I wasn’t told there was going to be a care plan but I think there is one. I haven’t seen it.”

Most people were very happy with their care and support.

Staff were able to explain how they delivered person-centred care.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People did not always receive care from consistent members of staff. Mixed feedback was given in respect of whether people had regular and consistent care staff to deliver their care. Whilst some people had a small group of set care staff who supported them, others expressed dissatisfaction with irregular care staff arriving to deliver their care. One relative told us there were, “Different carers, no regular ones.” and another said, “I have seen about 16 different ones[staff]in 6 weeks.”

We provided feedback to the provider during the inspection regarding people’s dissatisfaction with irregular carers, and the provider advised they would review the rotas and look to address the concerns.

Positive feedback was received from a local health professional, who stated, “Eunha have been excellent at working with myself, especially when I have asked clients and recommended new moving and handling techniques/equipment and proportionate care. I have had to demonstrate and show Eunha carer’s new ways of working with clients, with the new equipment/techniques and all carer’s and managers/senior carer’s have embraced this. They have also recognised and accepted when I have had to advise care time or carer’s is reduced in some instances as a result of new ways of working effectively for clients.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Whilst issues had been identified with information in care plans, the provider had been proactive following our feedback and had updated the relevant documents.

People’s feedback was mostly positive citing staff had good English; however, a few people did share there was a language barrier between themselves and some staff members, and this sometimes made it harder to communicate.

Most people could access their care records, with one relative stating, “I can access [loved one’s] care plan on the website.”

The provider met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard.

The management team advised there was a policy in place in respect of this, and they were happy to offer information in any alternative formats people requested. Examples of this were where they had given information to a person in a larger font and created flashcards for another person to ensure easier communication.

The Nominated Individual told us they wanted to ensure people knew any information given by the provider could be delivered in a range of methods to suit people’s communication needs. They said, “One improvement we do want to make is highlight clearly that [any information] can be offered in alternative formats - we assume [people and their relatives] know it can be given in different fonts and text.”

Since the last inspection, the provider had started working with a data security company, to ensure people’s data was protected.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint, should the need arise. Feedback included, “Not had to make a complaint, but I would go to the Manager.” and, “I would feel confident to speak up and make a complaint.”

Some people shared they had made complaints about service delivery, and these had been rectified. One relative stated, “We did complain via the Social Worker and [Care Manager] did visit, the care did improve.”

The provider told us they had a complaints process in place, and we saw evidence where complaints had been logged and the outcome recorded.

We also saw evidence of feedback surveys being sent out to people and their relatives.

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

The service offered flexibility for people, to receive their care at times which suited them. One person enjoyed going shopping and we saw evidence staff altered their visit times to accommodate this. Another person requested a late morning call and staff logging in and out data showed this was respected and adhered to.

People were supported by staff to attend medical appointments where required.

The service offered an out of hours service, which meant people, their relatives, and staff could speak to a member of the leadership team if required, outside of usual office hours. The Nominated Individual told us, “We are contactable up until about 11pm, however, if the phone rings at 2am, we will answer it.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Where people had cognitive impairment, the provider did not follow the Mental Capacity Act, and we, therefore, could not be assured the provider and staff team fully understood people’s rights under the Equality Act and Human Rights legislation.

One person told us they were unhappy with male carers washing them and had requested female carers only to deliver personal care; however, the provider was unable to fulfil this and was still sending male carers which made the person uncomfortable.

Care plans did not always reflect people’s protected characteristics and provide guidance for staff to support people’s outcomes.

Some people did experience positive outcomes through using the service. We found evidence of a person who required consistency, to be receiving the same carer, at the same time each day, and the carers followed a predictable routine. This supported the person to maintain their emotional state.

Staff mostly had completed training in equality and diversity.

People were not 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.

None of the care plans we reviewed during the inspection contained information about people’s goal or aspirations for the future.

Whilst some discussions had taken place to ascertain if people had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), these were not consistent, so the provider could not be clear on who this applied to.

Where people did have a DNACPR in place, there was very limited information to demonstrate conversations had taken place with people regarding their advanced wishes.

Records showed most staff had received end of life training.