Eden Lodge 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach in relation to person centred care at the service. 

This service scored 43 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans did not provide staff with detailed guidance on how to meet people’s individual needs. For example, mobility care plans did not give clear guidance on how to support a person who was no longer independently mobile. The care plan was worded in a kind manner but did not give staff detail such as the equipment needed to support with transfers. Additionally, a person's diabetes care plan did not detail the changes they may experience if their blood sugar levels are out of normal range. This meant staff did not have the relevant information needed to provide person-centred care.

There was no evidence the provider worked in partnership with people and their relatives to decide how to respond to changes in people’s needs.

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.

We identified shortfalls in support for people who required additional support such as hearing, vision or dental support. Where people had declined health checks, The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interests guidance had not been considered, or alternative options had not been explored with external healthcare professionals.

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

Some people required information to be provided to them in an alternative format, such as large print or in picture format.
At the time of the assessment there was a lack of readily available and accessible information for people and their relatives, such as information about safeguarding and advocacy.

We did see resident surveys completed in pictural format to gather feedback.

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

People living at the service were unaware of how to raise a complaint if needed. We reviewed the complaints folder which showed some complaints had been received. It did not provide detail on the investigation, conclusion or evidence the person who raised the complaint had been informed of the outcome.

There was no accessible information available to people on how to raise a complaint.

There was no evidence in place of a forum people could share feedback about the service, such as resident or relative meetings.

The provider had completed resident and relative surveys, but no analysis of the responses had been formulated to show they had been reviewed or listened to. There was no evidence of professional or staff feedback having been gathered. This meant people were at risk of not being listened to or effectively involved in decisions regarding their care.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were multiple hazards in the environment which could cause injury to people navigating the building. This meant people were at risk of avoidable harm.

The provider was unable to demonstrate people had access to routine healthcare services such as opticians, chiropodists, dietitians and other supporting professionals. However, the provider had made referrals to the district nursing team when needed.

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.

Established processes were not in place to ensure staff and leaders listened to people.

People’s protected characteristics were not always identified within people’s care plans, and this placed people at risk of discrimination and their needs not being met. This meant people were at increased risk of unequal access to care, as staff did not always have the information required to provide appropriate, inclusive and person-centred support.

People who spent time in their rooms did not have anything to occupy their days. This placed them at risk of isolation and negative impact to their wellbeing.

Activities were in place, however these were often group activities such as chair bases exercises and music which not all people could be part of. People who were able to participate appeared to enjoy themselves.

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.

We were told there were no people receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment, however those who had been deemed approaching this had required medicines in place to support them with being comfortable should they deteriorate rapidly.

Not all people had care plans detailing what should happen at the end stages of their life. Those that were in place did not include people’s choices, or involvement from loved ones.

Training records showed staff had completed training in end of life care, however a number of staff’s training on this topic had expired and needed completing again.