Estervin Court Residential Care 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider did not always include people in planning their care. Some care plans were not personalised and there was not always evidence of input from people in their own care plans.

Some people had care plans with incorrect information on in relation to their healthcare needs and gave misleading information.

One person had historical areas of concern that could impact others using the service, but this was not reflected in care planning.

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.

The provider did not always support new staff on their induction and agency staff received no induction. This meant staff did not always understand people’s needs and people were at risk because care plans and risk assessments were not robust. However, the provider did carry out handovers.

People using the service told us they felt the service worked with them to help them, and the staff were supportive. Rotas demonstrated there was a stable and consistent staff team.

The provider did ensure appropriate training was in place for the care staff to carry out appropriate care for the people using the service.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider did not always have information available in an appropriate range of formats, including in different languages. At least 1 person would have benefited from having information available to them in a different format.

The provider did not always have a pre-assessment in place for people using the service. preventing staff from accessing information about the person relevant to the care plans and risk assessments being in place. leding to staff not having an accurate understanding of some people’s needs, and potential risks.

The provider did not ensure all staff had been trained in GDPR. As a result, the provider can notdemonstrate all staffs ability to help people manage how their personal information is used.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider did not hold minuted feedback meetings for people using the service.

The provider did not always gather feedback from staff. We saw some feedback from some staff. The provider was unable to show if there had been any action taken from the feedback received, or if the information had been investigated or learning points taken from it.

The staff members spoken to advised they hadn’t been involved in general staff meetings apart from the daily handover meetings.

The provider did not have any improvement plans in place at the time of assessment.

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

People were supported to access healthcare professionals and appointments or receive emergency healthcare as needed. This included; dentist, optician, chiropodist, dieticians and other supporting professionals.

There was a GP linked to the service who team leaders accessed when required.

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.

The provider did not always personalise people’s care to their needs and they could not be assured people always received equitable outcomes or experiences. For example, we found care plans were not always up-to-date, they did not always reflect people’s preferences, or people’s environmental risks, which placed people at risk of not receiving an equitable outcome or experience.

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.

The provider was not supporting anyone on the end-of-life pathway. We did not see information about people’s end of life wishes.

The service accommodates younger adults but not obtaining people’s wishes meant if end of life support was needed unexpectedly, something which was important to that person may not be actioned.