Eversleigh Nursing 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 or their families, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We asked people if their care focused on what was important to them. One person told us, “I just get general care, I don’t think it’s personal to me.” Most people and relatives told us they had not been involved in creating or reviewing people’s care plans. One person said, “[Staff] never sit down and discuss my care with me.” One relative said, “There was an assessment initially, but no care planning discussions since.” However, other relatives gave examples showing how their family members’ care had been tailored to meet their needs and preferences, and how their views had been considered. For example, 1 relative told us their family member wished to change which bedroom they had, to move downstairs. The relative told us this had been discussed with staff and their family member had moved to a bedroom on the ground floor as they wished.

Staff told us they were guided to understand how people liked their care to be provided by checking the information in people’s care plans. However, we found there were inconsistencies in the information recorded in people’s care plans, for example, in relation to the frequency of checks people wanted and the level of support they required to eat and drink. Some elements of people’s care plans required more detail, to ensure all staff had the information required to tailor people’s care. This included how people wished to be supported when they were anxious. Care plans had not always been reviewed by the provider to ensure how they were managing people’s anxieties was effective. Some people at Eversleigh Nursing Home also lived with other diagnosis, such as a learning disability. We found best practice in relation to planning for people with such a diagnosis was not consistently followed. For example, a health action plan had not been put in place to support the person. A health action plan identifies an individual's health needs, the steps to address them, and who will provide support. It is needed to improve coordination of services, ensure person-centred care, and promote better health outcomes.

However, staff who knew people well were able to confirm what steps they used to reduce people’s distress. Staff also understood some people preferred to have a set structure so they knew which days they would be receiving specific care on. Staff gave us examples showing how they used this knowledge of what mattered to people when supporting them. However, there was an increased risk people would not receive person-centred care if they were supported by temporary staff or staff who do not know them well who had to be guided by their care plans.

The provider was not consistent in their understanding of the health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People were supported to obtain help from other health and social care professionals and referred to specialist health teams where appropriate. One person said because of this, “The staff are very good, they manage my health very well indeed.” However, some relatives who wanted to retain a role in their family member’s care were not always supported to do so. For example, 1 relative expressed concern about continuity of care and communication with temporary staff. The relative said, “I have no issue with the staff quality of care in the week. I do have issues with the agency staff at weekends, they don’t answer when you talk to them. They should remember [person’s name] blood pressure, but [agency staff] couldn’t tell me.” The relative told us temporary staff were also not aware of a recent fall their family member had experienced. Another relative told us their experience had been different. The relative said, “The permanent nurses and carers are excellent. I’m happy with how they manage [person’s name] health here.” Other relatives told us their family members were supported by staff to attend health appointments outside the home, which helped with continuity of care.

Staff recognised the benefits of seeking advice from other local health professionals. For example, staff had made referrals in relation to wound management and considered involving other local health specialists, such as podiatrists and speech and language specialists so people would have joined up healthcare.

The provider was able to supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, the provider was able to provide large font formats of key documents for people’s information.Staff understood people’s communication needs and took action to support them. One staff member told us, “We sometimes use flash cards with questions on them. This helps us to communicate and with social interaction.” Another staff member told us staff had previously supported a person to communicate their wishes using a white board. A third staff member told us some staff were able to communicate with people in their preferred language.People’s communication needs had been assessed, but communication plans would benefit from further detail to assist staff who may not be familiar with the people they were caring for.

The provider made it easy for people to raise complaints about their care, treatment and support, but did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about their care. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care.

People said they would feel happy to raise any concerns. One person said, “I haven’t made any complaints. I think I’d tell [staff member’s name] if I did.” A relative told us they had raised a concern about the care provided and said this had been promptly addressed. Processes were in place to investigate complaints made and to provide feedback to complainants. However, some relatives told us they had raised concerns, but these had not always been resolved to their satisfaction. This included in relation to damage to their family member’s clothes when laundered.

Opportunities for people to provide feedback on their care through involvement in reviews of their own care was limited, as people and their relatives were not always involved in their care plan reviews. People had been given the opportunity to provide feedback through a residents’ quality survey in March 2025. Staff had identified actions arising from people’s feedback, but there was no evidence these had been completed. In addition, relatives told us they were not able to provide their feedback through regular relatives’ meetings. One relative told us there had not been any recent relatives’ meetings. The relative said, “The newsletter said there would be one, but it’s not happened not so far.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff used a recognised tool to monitor people’s health needs and well-being. This helped to ensure appropriate referrals were made to other health professionals when required. Staff gave us examples showing how they supported people with protected characterises to access other health and social care services, by accompanying them on health appointments. Staff also gave us examples showing how they varied how they cared for people, so their well-being needs were met. However, we could not be sure people fully benefited from the medicines prescribed to them, which placed people with protected characteristics at risk of not receiving the care they wanted safely. Another health and social care provider had also raised concerns about the impact of the premises on people’s access to the care they may require in an emergency. The registered manager told us the planned refurbishment of the home would address this, however no timescales were confirmed, and there were no plans to manage this in the interim.

Some people required specific communication plans relating to their individual diagnosis, so their communication preferences were effectively communicated to other health professionals. We found these were not always in place.

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.

People told us they were treated fairly. One person said because of this, “I have no complaints at the moment.” Staff had identified people’s faith and cultures and gave us examples showing how they supported people to celebrate these, so their well-being was maintained.

However, some relatives told us there had been occasions when their family member’s protected characteristic needs had not been appropriately responded to. For example, 1 relative told us their family member’s health conditions meant they were not independently mobile. The relative said there had been delays in staff providing the continence care their family needed. Another relative told us there had been barriers to their family member receiving the pain relief they wanted because of miscommunication across staff teams at the home and in the community. The relative told us when this was resolved, care in this area “Was good.”

People were not always supported to make detailed plans for important life changes, including at the end of their life.

People’s care plans contained information about people’s religious, cultural needs and end of life care. This included how people wished their families to be involved with their care at this important stage of their lives. However, people’s end of life care plans needed to be further expanded, to ensure people’s wishes at the end of their lives were fully understood, and to ensure staff had the full range of guidance required to provide tailored care to people.

Staff practice meant people did not always receive person-centred care at the end of their lives. One relative told us about the care their family member received. The relative told us some of their family member’s basic care needs had not been met. For example, they had not been supported to change their clothes. The relative said they addressed this and some safety issues with the home manager, who acknowledged there were some staff shortages in the home. The relative said, “Communication from staff could have been much better. [Person’s name] was treated like they had an illness, not like they were on end of life care.”

Staff gave examples showing how they worked in partnership with other health professionals to ensure people’s end of life needs were met. This included liaising with people’s families, to ensure they were able to be present when a person was nearing end of life.