Eden Mansions Nursing Home

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 62 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always fully check and discuss people’s health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

The registered manager told us assessments were usually completed before a person moved into Eden Mansions. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, these assessments were often done remotely rather than in person. Face-to-face assessments were occasionally arranged if the person appeared to have complex needs. In urgent situations, people were sometimes admitted based on verbal or written information from social or health care professionals. The provider supported many people with complex needs, and staff shared examples where full or accurate information had not been received. The registered manager agreed to review their pre-admission assessment procedures, to ensure the completeness of information and to involve people and/or their relatives more effectively at this stage.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care plans were developed and included information about how to support people’s health conditions, such as epilepsy and dementia. However, some care plans contained contradictory information. Leaders said this may be because some parts of care plans were amended, but other parts were not. Staff addressed any inaccuracies we identified straight away.

Where people had specific dietary requirements, staff needed to ensure these were robustly followed. One person needed support or encouragement with drinks, however, their records indicated they had received only a minimal amount to drink on the day of our visit. The registered manager said there was a process for nursing staff to monitor and respond if a persons’ fluid intake was low. We found inconsistencies in records relating to the amount of thickening agent staff added to a person’s drinks. The registered manager said they would take action to address this.

People told us they were offered enough to eat and drinks, including snacks. One person said, “I am offered biscuits with my tea. I can have a drink anytime.” The provider had introduced a ‘Menu app’ which meant relatives could be involved in making meal choices where required.

Whilst people’s oral hygiene needs were recorded in their care plans, we found some toothbrushes appeared dry and unused. The registered manager agreed to focus on improving this aspect of people’s care with staff and to carry our further training.

Following people’s admission to the service, staff used various assessment tools and worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people received appropriate treatment. We received positive feedback from relatives; one said, “[Name] had behavioural issues that were managed at the unit. We have been very pleased how [name] is being cared for."

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

A staff member told us, “Staff are really good, we work as a team.” Staff told us communication was good, and they were kept up to date via regular handover meetings. Relevant information was available on electronic devices.

Feedback indicated staff worked well across services. For example, a relative said, “[Name] is having pureed food, and the staff know all about it. The physio is coming in. They all work as a team.” We received positive feedback from visiting professionals about staff knowledge and communication.

The provider supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff referred people to various health and social care professionals, to seek further assessment and guidance where required. The local GP visited twice weekly to review people’s health needs. The provider provided rehabilitation and recovery places to support people coming from hospital. We received positive feedback from health care professionals who regularly visited the service, about the care provided.

Overall, the provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. However, leaders did not always ensure reviews of care were robust and took account of all aspects of the care plan, including any changes. Staff undertook monthly reviews of people via a ‘resident of the day’ system, which considered if their care needs continued to be met. However, staff had not always considered all potential changes. For example, where one person had experienced several distressed incidents due to their dementia needs, this was not reflected in the review or amendments made to their care plan. Leaders had identified the need to ensure reviews were robust and were monitoring this.

We found staff were usually responsive and acted in response to changes in people's presentation. Discussions demonstrated staff monitored people’s outcomes in partnership with relatives and social/healthcare professionals.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Overall, staff sought consent from people and made decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where required. Staff had undertaken several assessments and made various best interest decisions for some people, such as for the use of bed rails or sensor mats. However, some records were variable, for example, for the use of CCTV in communal areas. In some cases, records relating to best interest decisions could be more detailed to evidence what staff had considered to reach the decision.

People’s rights were protected as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been submitted appropriately to the local authority and kept under review. Any conditions attached were recorded within people’s care plans for ongoing action.