Eden Lodge Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 40 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed people being told to sit down consistently when they were upset and required reassurance. Interaction, natural support and conversations were not observed, and care was task focused rather than person led. People were in dirty clothes and not supported to change to promote their dignity.

We did observe some people taking part in an activity in the afternoon with staff which they appeared to enjoy. They were playing with sand and listening to shells with smiles on their faces.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

There was limited evidence of people being supported or encouraged by staff to engage in meaningful activities of their choosing. We observed people who sat in the lounge with music playing on the TV for long periods of time. People who remained in their bedrooms did not receive support to engage in meaningful activities, other than the radio being played in their bedrooms. One person was sat in their room in silence with no conversation or engagement from staff, and television or radio.

People with specific needs did not have these met in relation to the food provided. One person living with diabetes was offered a pudding which they liked, however when this arrived it was not what they had been offered. This had visibly upset the person.

Overall, staff appeared to know people well, but people told us they felt staff were busy and did not have the opportunity to spend time with them.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The provider did not ensure people had choice or control over the way they spent their day. There was limited evidence of people’s involvement or consultation regarding topics such as meals provided, or the provision of activities.

Where people were given choice, such as options at mealtimes, we observed choices not always being respected without apology or clear explanation.

As reported within this report, some people were restricted in their movements and were told to sit down repeatedly.

This meant people were at risk of institutional care and treatment.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We found a lot of people within the service to be mobile, however there was not always staff available to support people. Staffing pressures and task allocation meant there were times when staff were not present in communal areas to observe or respond promptly to people who required reassurance or assistance. Throughout the day, we observed one of the lounges with people, but no staff for support. The people in the lounge did not have the means of summoning help if required in an emergency.

We did not observe any call bells sounding, however found rooms did not have call bells or sensors in place should help be needed.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The previous manager had recently left their role and a new manager was due to start. . Senior staff were acting up into the manager’s role in the interim.

Workforce wellbeing was not proactively considered. Staff spoke of favouritism within the workforce and found it an unpleasant environment at times. One staff member told us, “It is very hard and a lot of the time a toxic place to work”.

There was no evidence of staff surveys or action that had been taken to improve teamwork and staff morale.