Archived: Eboracum 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 requires improvement. 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.

Feedback from people and their relatives was mixed. Some people felt they were involved in their care planning and the information recorded about them; however, other people told us they were not involved in this process.

Staff told us that people’s preferences and needs were ascertained by speaking to people and through the provider’s internal processes, such as handover records. Staff were able to tell us detailed information about the people they supported.

During the inspection we observed periods where dining rooms were left unsupervised, which posed a potential risk. For example, a person’s care plan stated staff had to observe them when near food due to them having seizures. We observed this person persistently coughing throughout the lunch time experience and staff did not check to see if the person was in distress or discomfort.

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's care plans were not always up to date. Inconsistent information was viewed which related to the monitoring of people’s health and care needs. Some plans and risk assessments lacked sufficient detail to ensure that appropriate care was delivered. Staff feedback about people's care needs and people's written records were not always consistent.

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

People's ability to communicate was recorded in their communication care plan to help ensure their communication needs were met. Care plans detailed people's communication support needs and included basic information such as glasses and hearing aids. The plan included information on how to communicate with people effectively.

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.There was a complaints procedure and systems for oversight. These indicated that complaints were investigated, and responses given.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Records evidenced referrals had been made to external professionals where required. Care records required some improvements to ensure robust plans were in place to guide staff following healthcare assessments.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen 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.

Documentation did not always reflect robust working arrangements with external health and social care partners and, as such, positive outcomes for people were not always routinely monitored. We found inconsistencies in people’s care plans. Where care plans were more detailed, they were not always followed and this put people at potential risk of harm.

People were not always 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. End of life care wishes were not always documented within care plans. Some people did not wish to discuss this stage of their life; however, people’s likes and dislikes had not been incorporated into documentation.