Edgar Street Residential 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 – 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 remained good. This meant services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.

This service scored 82 (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 was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff worked with people, their families and relevant health and social care professionals when making decisions about people’s care. Managers and staff ensured people’s views were sought, recorded, respected and acted on. When the views of others did not align with the views of the person, staff advocated for people with passion and determination, to ensure their wishes were heard and upheld. Care planning was holistic in nature, reflective of the person’s whole life, including their goals, skills, abilities and how they wished to manage their health and wellbeing. Whilst staff always encouraged healthy, varied lifestyles, they respected people’s right to not always follow guidance and live their own lives.

People were empowered to carry out personalised activities; activity timetables looked different for everyone. Staff took action to remove barriers to activities and made reasonable adjustments to enable people to do whatever it was they wanted to do. People were able to do this due to staff having an excellent understanding of people’s individual needs. When a person’s church had questioned the persons jewellery choices, staff at the home supported the person to explore their beliefs further, to see if their faith truly reflected their religious beliefs.

Feedback received from partners in people’s care told us about several examples of excellent person centred care provided, such as providing additional staff to support a person during hospital appointments, and visiting a person daily whilst in hospital.

The manager of the service played an active key role in the local community and actively established and maintained links with several charitable and community organisations. These links enabled the manager to identify and share opportunities that people may enjoy engaging with. People’s engagement with these charitable opportunities enabled people to feel valued members of society. One person at the service had fund raised enough money to provide several family support bags for people and their children who were admitted to hospital with little or no prior notice.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider had ensured staff and managers had access to and had received specific additional training in learning disability and positive behavioural support to better help the people they supported. People’s care plans reflected the involvement and support level of others involved in their care.

People’s views on their care, and whether they felt they received the right level of care and support were sought and recorded. Professionals who provided feedback on the service told us how managers and staff at the service worked well together to provide the highest levels of care continuity and care integration across services, and gave examples of how this was achieved.
 

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

People received information in easy read and pictorial formats that they could understand. Information provided to people was up to date and accurate. One member of staff told us how a person had been supported to use travel apps so they could follow any changes to bus and train times.

We observed staff speaking to people using simple, short sentences, allowing people time to consider their response before replying. Staff had received training in the General Data Protection Regulations and the Accessible Information Standards. They had demonstrated how they would adapt their communication style to meet people’s preferences, such as avoiding complicated language, pointing to images.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care, recorded these decisions, and told people what had changed as a result.

A house charter was in place at the home, this outlined the shared values, expectations, and rules for how people live and work together in the home. Regular house meetings were held, so that people could discuss their care and support, or any other subjects they wished to discuss.

People were fully involved as partners in their care. People told us they felt listened to, their opinions were valued and they were able to fully express themselves. People knew how to raise a complaint, and people were supported in their right to raise a complaint. One person told us, “If I’m not happy, I’d say something, and I know how to do it!” Staff were guided by people, and we witnessed care that was truly person led.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place, and this was accessible to people.

Relatives of people also told us they were aware of the complaints policy and procedure, and had been provided copies of this. They were able to give examples of raising concerns and complaints and how the provider had responded to them. Where people had raised concerns, we saw these had been clearly documented, reviewed, and outcomes discussed and shared with people to help them understand these. One person’s relative told us, “They [staff] always listen to me and investigated things when I’ve not been happy, they never brush things under the carpet.”
 

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

Care records showed people’s health, care and support needs were regularly monitored. We saw evidence of timely referrals to other professionals, such as speech and language therapists, GP’s, physiotherapist, learning disability nurses and mental health practitioners. People were supported to attend appointments with their dentist, opticians and a range of well woman services.

Feedback received from external partners in people’s care highlighted how managers and staff at the service went ‘above and beyond’ to support a person with complex needs, working ‘tirelessly’ to advocate for people.
 

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

Staff told us of the importance of people ‘leading’ their care. One staff member told us, “It’s their life, and I just feel like it’s a privilege being allowed to be a part of it, and see them shine.”
Outcomes of people using the service reflected the values and culture of Right Support, Right Care, Right time. Inclusion, choice and control were at the heart of everything the service did. There was a sustained focus on what people could do for themselves, and what they could achieve when barriers were removed. If people were unable to do something without support, the lowest level of support required to achieve their desired outcomes was explored, such as using verbal prompts rather than physical interactions.

Managers and staff at the home understood and were able to tell us about the discrimination, inequalities and barriers to care that people with a learning disability may experience, and how they worked to advocate for people to remove them.
 

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.

At the time of our visit, no-one living at the home was in receipt of end of life care, but staff had received training in this. The manager had held conversations with people about their preferences and wishes around end of life care, and had subsequently developed detailed care plans that reflected the wishes of people. In addition, conversations had been held with people, and when appropriate their relatives about their funeral wishes. This allowed people to have funeral plans in place that they were able to share with others who mattered to them, to ensure their wishes were known and followed.