Ebenezer Residential Care Home

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

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were not person-centred and did not fully reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. As a result, the service did not always provide people with options or choices about how their care was delivered or ensure care and treatment were tailored to individual needs.

People did not always receive personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Not all the care plans had information about people’s health diagnosis, allergies or background histories, or other important information such as details of their GP and other healthcare professionals.

The care plans also did not have accurate information about health and wellbeing. For example, a care plan reviewed in February 2026 contained information which had not been updated to accurately reflect the person’s need. This meant people’s care and support needs were not met.

People had hospital passports in place which is way of sharing important health information about a person with a range of healthcare professionals. However, we noted the information was not accurate despite being updated recently. This meant in the event of an emergency, important information would not be passed on to those healthcare professionals.

Where people’s care plan referred to them living with the medical condition such as diabetes, a personalised risk assessment detailing early intervention and management strategies were not recorded. There was no diabetes management care plan and risk assessment completed for this person. This meant people’s healthcare needs were not being met.

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

The provider did not work closely with health services to develop a network of support to ensure people’s needs were met. For example, the provider did not make referral to SALT when people need it.

Information was not being shared between staff and the registered manager to ensure continuity of care. For example, care plans we reviewed did not have the accurate information about people’s needs.

The relatives confirmed they can contact the registered manager or nominated person anytime to share their concerns.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We found people’s communication needs were not being met. For example, a care plan of a person stated, “As [Person] finds it difficult to engage verbal gesture to communicate, staff will continue to work with him to explore what he likes/dislikes in order for him to develop a fuller life.” We found no evidence the provider made any efforts to explore and adopt communication methods such as picture exchange communication system (PECS), communication diaries, and physical gestures for this person. This meant people’s communication needs were not being met.

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

People were encouraged, where possible, to contribute their views and be actively involved in decisions about the care and support they received. Staff had regular meetings with people to discuss their care needs.

Relatives told us that they were kept up to date with what was happening with their family members. A relative told us, “Staff do discuss concerns with me. Every time I speak to staff, they give me feedback about my [relative’s] health and well-being.”

A relative told us, “I know how to raise a complaint. I got the registered manager’s contact number. I never had to raise a complaint.”

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

Equality and inclusion were actively promoted. People were treated fairly and without discrimination.

People told us staff supported them when required to access and receive care that met their individual needs and preferences. Staff worked with people in planning for their care and support.

Staff actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider ensured that people’s care and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays, and protected their rights.

The provider actively listened to people and their families about how they liked to be supported. Staff worked to achieve desired outcomes by recognising individuality and people’s different needs, circumstances and protected characteristics. On our visit, people were out in the community independently. One person said, “I go to places of worship and town hall.”

Staff were trained to recognise and respond to diverse needs, promoting fairness and inclusivity in the delivery of care.

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.

The care plans we reviewed clearly outlined the goals people wanted to achieve. There were clear guidance and instructions for staff, including how to work with the person to achieve those goals. The care plans had information about people’s decisions to refuse treatment should they became unwell. People using the service had hospital passports.

At the time of our assessment, the deputy manager confirmed that they did not have plans to provide end of life care. However, systems were in place to discuss planning for the future, to ensure people’s needs and wishes were identified, should this type of care be required.