Archived: Eboracum House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation by failing to support people in a person-centred way.

This service scored 45 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. The mixed feedback given reflected observations of care during inspection. We observed some kind and caring practice, which showed that some staff knew people and understood how to support them. However, we saw interactions where staff did not respond to people, did not request consent before providing care, and did not provide assurance when supporting people. People were not consistently given kind, compassionate care and support when they needed it.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People felt they were generally treated with dignity and respect. One person commented, " I can get out when I want and can stop in if I want."

A range of individual risk assessments regarding people's needs were completed and reviewed regularly. However, it was not clear that these were always accurate and sufficiently detailed to contain clear information about people's likes and preferences.

We observed staff did not always request consent or provide meaningful choices to people. For example, at lunch time staff gave people their meals without speaking to them or asking if they needed anything else or any support.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Our observations showed people were not always supported to make decisions and choices. People were not always encouraged to be as independent as possible.

People did not have access to their own mobility aids, including walking frames and wheelchairs with footplates, which may have limited their independence and personal mobility. As a result, some individuals were unable to move safely or independently, potentially impacting their ability to participate in daily activities.

People had access to friends and family. Relatives spoken with told us they could visit when they wanted and were always made welcome.

Staff did not always encourage independence, and we observed staff were task orientated in their approach and not person-centred, particularly at mealtimes. At lunch time we observed people were not offered a choice of hot or cold drinks. The menu board was displaying the wrong menu which was contradictory of what food was provided. We saw one person eating lunch in the lounge. When we asked staff why they weren’t in the dining room, they said the person slipped down while eating and sitting in their wheelchair. When we asked why the person couldn’t sit in a dining chair instead, the staff member said, “I didn’t think of that.”

Some people told us they felt there was little to do in terms of meaningful activity. People told us “There ought to be more activities here, I used to like doing crafts and things, but they don’t do it much here.”

The systems and processes in place to ensure people were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing required improvement.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. For example, staff did not respond when we observed one person becoming anxious and distressed at another person who was persistently coughing in the dining room.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Processes were in place to support staff to share their concerns, however these processes had not ensured issues with well-being and morale had been addressed.