Eden View Care and Response Services Ltd Also known as Eden View

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. This assessment fed in to care plans and risk assessments that reflected people’s needs. The provider had recently updated all care plans to be more person centred. Although some people and relatives told us they had not been involved in the assessment process, they were happy with how care was planned and how people’s needs were being met.

The provider 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 and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The provider used recognised guidance and tools to assess people’s needs and used this information to develop people’s care plans. Staff had training on good practice in a range of areas to deliver care effectively. For example, staff had nutrition training to assist people to eat appropriate and balanced diets.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had implemented new processes to help identify learning, but these were not yet embedded. For example, audits in the service were new and were not always identifying and rectifying issues we found at this assessment. Staff had not routinely had meetings, supervision sessions or appraisals to share good practice and learning. There were new processes to gather feedback from people who used the service, but these had only been introduced recently. The service did identify learning from safeguarding incidents and shared this with staff. Management investigated and reported safety events.

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 where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Overall, people and their relatives were satisfied with the care provided, and felt staff monitored people’s needs well. Care records were person-centred.

The provider did not regularly and consistently monitor people’s care and treatment to consistently improve care. The provider could not always demonstrate that people’s outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. There was a lack of governance oversight in this area. Care reviews and checks on people’s care had recently improved but these had been inconsistent and not always completed in-line with the provider’s policy. New audits had been introduced to look at the quality of people’s care. A member of staff had been employed to support with the completion of care reviews. All care plans had been updated recently and reflected the outcomes people wanted to achieve. People were generally satisfied with their care.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected their rights when delivering care and treatment. People’s care records documented their consent to treatment and offered staff guidance of when to ask for consent. People told us they were asked their permission before care was given and their rights were respected. A relatives told us, “Yes, [Person] can make choices and staff request consent before giving care.” Staff told us information about people’s capacity was recorded. Management had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and when people needed support with decision making.