Eyam Domiciliary Service Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 83 (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 demonstrated an exceptional and proactive approach to assessing people’s needs before support began. Assessments were not only thorough and holistic but also highly personalised, reflecting each person’s background, communication preferences, strengths and long-term goals. Leaders gathered detailed information from people, their relatives, and met with a wide range of external professionals, including GPs, community nurses, and specialist teams.

Their assessment process included a review of previous critical incidents and led to thorough risk assessments and care plans; that really captured the individual’s priority needs. One relative shared how after [name’s] health deterioration, they had been told they could access 2 nights funded care. However, leaders demonstrated how with the information they had gathered and the fully completed assessment as evidence, funding was secured for 3 nights which the family said was ‘Outstanding’. This meant the person and their relatives were fully supported by a seamless service, right across health and social care.

Leaders demonstrated an excellent understanding of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), ensuring all information was provided in formats that genuinely enabled people to understand and participate in decisions. For example, one person who was registered blind received weekly rota updates through a recorded telephone call, enabling them to independently review who would be visiting. This tailored approach meant people were empowered and always informed.

The structure of assessments and care plans also enabled rapid access to multidisciplinary support. For example, key sections such as in ‘Me, My Mental Health and My Challenges' were clearly prioritised, allowing community mental health professionals to identify essential information quickly. This ensured timely, needs specific support and reflected the provider’s commitment to working collaboratively across organisations.

Professionals also highlighted the impressive continuity and consistency of support. One professional told us, “Carers, where possible, are kept the same so continuity continues for patients, which is key for people with cognition or memory issues such as dementia or Alzheimer’s.” This demonstrated the provider’s deep understanding of how familiar, skilled staff can enhance safety, comfort and wellbeing for people with additional cognitive needs.

Overall, the provider’s approach to assessing needs was exceptionally person-centred and inclusive, placing people firmly in control and ensuring their care was designed around what mattered most to them.
 

The provider always planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider delivered care and support using recognised assessment tools, and evidence‑based best practice, such as, completing an early initial review and satisfaction call, designed to check whether the assessment and care package had been implemented effectively. This provided an opportunity for people, their relatives or advocates to give feedback at an early stage, ensuring the service could respond quickly to any required changes and maintain high‑quality, personalised care.

Staff used structured assessment frameworks to ensure people’s needs were understood comprehensively, and leaders sought the views of those involved to ensure assessments remained accurate, relevant, and person‑centred. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs and demonstrated genuine commitment to delivering high‑quality care. People told us staff understood what mattered to them, and staff showed confidence in applying evidence‑based approaches in day‑to‑day practice.

Staff and leaders worked collaboratively to share skills and improve care outcomes. For example, a person had recently been fitted with a convene to support continence, skin integrity and dignity. When the person asked for assistance managing it, staff promptly updated the tasks and care plan, ensuring this need was clearly communicated to those providing support.
During this time, it became apparent that some staff found it more challenging to fit the convene correctly. Leaders identified that one carer consistently achieved positive outcomes and approached her to share her technique and experience. She delivered a practical training session to select colleagues, demonstrating the specific method tailored to this person’s anatomy and preferences. This example demonstrated how team‑based learning, problem‑solving, and evidence‑informed care contributed to improved outcomes and a consistent standard of high‑quality support.
 

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

Relatives confirmed they felt listened to and that any feedback they provided was acknowledged and responded to. One said, “EDS Homecare take their duty of care very seriously. They have contacted me several times to report things like an eye infection, swollen feet or bruising. It is easy to contact management, and they are always very helpful.” This demonstrated the provider was consistently proactive in working with other services to support people and their relatives at all stages of the care journey.

The registered manager confirmed they safeguarded sensitive information, using password-protected file sharing with relevant healthcare professionals, ensuring that access was restricted to authorised individuals only. Feedback from external professionals was consistently positive around the working relationship they had with the provider. For example, “They communicate effectively, particularly when issues arise or when they identify areas where practice could be improved. They are proactive in engaging wider health and social care partners”.

A member of staff told us, “The communication is brilliant and we have access to care plans and risk assessments in clients houses and the app. This allows us to get information we need in order to provide person-centred care at all times. These are regularly reviewed and updated.”

All professionals confirmed the provider worked well with them and shared information appropriately. A professional shared, “Caregivers provide comprehensive documentation, which is shared with nursing staff when necessary, ensuring that they are informed of any changes or needs” and “Caregivers refer to the community nursing team for a second opinion when needed.”
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives and, wherever possible, helped them to reduce their future need for care and support. They encouraged people to remain in their own homes by promoting independence and enabling people to maintain, and where appropriate, increase their daily living skills. This included people being supported to attend the gym to improve and sustain their physical health.

Staff had completed training in key areas that helped them identify and respond appropriately to people’s health needs. As a result, staff were confident in recognising when someone’s health might be deteriorating and knew how to support them to access timely healthcare intervention.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to ensure it remained effective and continued to meet their needs. Systems were in place to review care regularly, identify any changes, and make adjustments to support positive and consistent outcomes for people.

The provider demonstrated a person-centred approach, ensuring individuals remained central to decisions about their care. People and their relatives told us that staff understood their needs, reviewed them regularly, and responded promptly when any changes occurred. This helped ensure people continued to receive care that aligned with their preferences and supported their wellbeing.

Feedback from people and their families was positive. Several described meaningful improvements in wellbeing linked to the support provided and spoke warmly about the caring attitudes of staff. Relatives told us regular staff provided consistent and reliable care. One described staff as, “Absolutely excellent,” noting their understanding of dementia related needs and their gentle, effective approach. They also valued the time staff spent sitting, during meals or drinks, offering companionship and conversation.

The provider demonstrated good oversight of people’s care. With key information documented clearly. Sharing where appropriate, and escalating any concerns to healthcare professionals, to ensure individuals received timely and appropriate interventions.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were supported to have choice and control, with staff working in ways that maintained independence and promoted safety without unnecessary restrictions.

The provider respected people’s preferences regarding the gender of the staff delivering their personal care. Where individuals expressed a preference for male only or female only carers, this was clearly recorded in their care plan and communicated to the staff team. These preferences were consistently upheld during scheduling to ensure people felt safe, comfortable and in control of their care.

Staff had undertaken training and understood the areas of Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) that were applicable and ensured that they asked for consent and offered choices to people. Where people were assessed as lacking capacity to make specific decisions, best interest decisions were carried out. These were documented in people’s care plans and showed who participated in the decision-making process and how the decision had been reached.