Eversleigh Nursing Home

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.

This service scored 60 (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.

There were mixed views from people and relatives as to whether the provider always treated people with kindness and compassion or respected their privacy and dignity. Some relatives spoke positively about the caring way their family members were supported. One person said, “I find the care here is very good, [staff] are very understanding.” One relative told us, “[Staff] are very diligent and caring.” Another relative said, “I think the staff are good. [Staff member name] in the office is very helpful.”

However, some people told us they were not always treated with empathy or made to feel valued by staff. One person told us, “I don’t feel I’m important to them or anything.” In addition, some relatives told us they did not feel staff listened to them or acted when they made suggestions to improve their family member’s care.

Further, people’s privacy and dignity was not always respected and upheld. We saw 3 occasions where staff went into people’s rooms without checking if people and their visitors agreed to this. On some of these occasions staff members did not treat people with dignity by addressing the person.

Staff were respectful to colleagues.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people`s care support and treatment met people`s needs and preferences.

People said their personal preferences were understood and respected. One person told us, “I can get up when I want, I go to bed around 11.00pm, there’s no pressure to go to bed.” Another person told us they were supported to have the type of personal care they wanted.

Staff gave us examples of people’s individual preferences, which demonstrated they understood people’s needs and preferences. Staff had taken time to understand what interests and hobbies were important to people and told us how they responded to individuals by celebrating their birthdays. Staff also gave us examples of showing how they supported people so their sensory and protected characteristics support needs were met. For example, by providing hand massages where people enjoyed this.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Some staff demonstrated positive, respectful engagement, but there were gaps in staff practice and how care was provided, which limited people’s independence, choice, and control.

People were supported to make some day-to-day choices, such as what they wished to eat and drink and where within the home they spent their time. One relative told us, “[Person’s name] does choose where to go when they want, they just get up and [staff] let them.” However, people were not always supported to make informed choices in other areas. For example, 1 relative said, “I think they just get out what clothes they think, I haven’t heard them ask them.” This indicated some people were not routinely involved in decisions about their day to day care.

The service had been without an activities co-ordinator for approximately 8 months prior to our inspection. This had resulted in limited staff resources to provide meaningful engagement with people. Relatives raised concerns about a lack of regular interaction and stimulation for their family members, which had affected some people’s wellbeing. One relative told us, “[Person’s name] has deteriorated since they have been here, there’s no interaction and they’re stuck in their room. They’re lacking confidence now.” A new activities co-ordinator had recently commenced employment and some relatives acknowledge this had resulted in more structured support to people. One relative told us, “[Staff member’s name] comes and sits with them and chats.” However, staff did not always encourage or enable people to maintain their independence and social connections outside the home, or support people to access outdoor spaces. People told us they had not spent time outside of the home and had limited access to the garden. One relative said, “[Staff] don’t take them out, I do in their wheelchair.”

People were supported to maintain relationships and friendships with those important to them, and visitors to the home were able to visit without restrictions.

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.

People and relatives had mixed views about how responsively their care was provided. One person said when they wanted routine support, “Sometimes it takes a long time for [staff] to come.” Some relatives told us there had been delays when their family members used their call bells to call staff for assistance. One relative said, “[Person’s name] ring their call bell day and night. [Staff] don’t always come. [Person’s name] says it can take between 5 minutes and 30 minutes for them to come.” Another relative told us, “They need to answer the bells more quickly overnight.”

We found call bells often rang out, especially during busy times. The alarm system showed the person’s room number but did not show for how long the call bell had gone unanswered. The registered manager told us the current call bell system required upgrading, as it was not possible to analyse the call response times accurately in all areas of the home. The registered manager said this would be addressed as part of the refurbishment of the home but gave us no planned completion date.

However, some people told us they could rely on staff assisting them at the time they wanted support and a relative told us, “The staff are very able and anticipate things.” Staff gave us examples showing how they quickly responded to people’s needs when emergencies, such as falls, occurred.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver care.

Staff told us they were supported when they wanted to be. One staff member told us senior staff had sensitively and proactively supported them when they experienced a bereavement. The staff member said, “[Home manager’s name] took time to check in with me.” The staff member said how much they had appreciated this had happened. Another staff member told us, “I feel that I matter. [Registered manager’s name] is concerned about staff and considerate.”

Staff’s health needs and any adaptations required were explored during induction and reviewed with staff during their employment. A staff member told us following changes in their own health, they had been supported by senior staff to change some of their patterns of work. This meant the staff members were able to continue to provide support to people, with their own needs met.

Staff had access to 1-to-1 supervision sessions, which provided opportunities to feedback any concerns about the service or with their own well-being. Staff were not aware of any staff reward schemes or awards. The registered manager told us they planned to re-introduce an employee of the month award in the near future, so staff would know they were valued.