Earsdon Grange Care 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 remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed people’s needs in a timely and coordinated way and used a range of information to form a holistic picture of each person. Pre‑admission assessments captured medical, social and emotional needs, and staff reviewed these when people moved in or their needs changed.

There was evidence of involvement of people and their family, and care plans were developed from these assessments to ensure they reflected each person’s current needs, preferences and any assessed risks. Assessments considered and allowed for positive risk-taking and outcomes were monitored.

People told us staff understood their needs well. One person said, “I get what I need, and they know how to help me,” while relatives described the home’s pre‑admission and settling‑in processes as “warm” and “reassuring.”

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.

Staff used current guidance, training and professional input to deliver effective care and treatment. Care plans reflected relevant clinical guidance for example in areas such as diabetes, falls prevention, wound care and nutrition.

Staff used this guidance in their day‑to‑day work and demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people effectively, including following safe moving and handling techniques to promote people’s comfort and dignity.

People were encouraged to eat well and stay hydrated. Staff tailored diets to individual needs, such as diabetic options, modified textures and preferences gathered through discussion. The chef spent time with people to understand their personal dietary requirements, food preferences, and the way they liked their food prepared and cooked. He told us, “I know what they like.”

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.

Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing. Internal communication systems ensured staff were kept up to date and the registered manager’s visibility allowed for timely advice and problem solving. Handover notes, team discussions and debriefs supported consistent joined‑up practice. Hospital passports were in place to support communication and information sharing in the event of an urgent admission.

Health professionals described the home as “well-organised” with staff being responsive as “they act upon our recommendations.” Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings were well coordinated, “very informative” and staff “know their residents well.”

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.

Staff recognised the importance of lifestyle choices, nutrition, meaningful engagement and community connections to enhance health and wellbeing which was evident through dining experiences and a structured activity and support programme. These included sharing time with children from visiting schools, links with local churches and community outings which provided positive health benefits for people.

District nurses, GPs and other professionals told us the home was responsive and proactive in seeking advice to help maintain people’s health and wellbeing. The deputy manager supported a person with pre-diabetes indicators and coordinated a plan of care with her GP to help proactively tackle and reverse risk factors which if left ignored could have significantly increased her risk of developing type 2 diabetes and associated health complications.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider maintained effective systems for monitoring and improving people’s outcomes. Processes were developed to support people to achieve their goals and objectives, to respond efficiently in the event of a changing health or wellbeing need and when outcomes were not met.

Care plans were regularly reviewed and adapted to record progress, changes and new goals and outcomes for people. We found evidence of interventions and actions taken to improve outcomes for people in response to feedback.

People and their families described seeing positive results. One relative said, “She looks well looked after every time I go,” while another relative described the home as “a home from home that encourages quality of life.”

The provider told people about their rights to consent to care, support and treatment.

We observed staff providing information and visual prompts to people to seek their consent and inform decision making before undertaking any care and support interaction. Where people needed support in making decisions, staff afforded them time and space to do so.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), the legal framework to support people who may lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. Care records demonstrated decision‑specific assessments and the two‑stage mental capacity test to ensure any decision made on behalf of a person was in their best interests.

Staff were observed to act in people’s best interests and there was no evidence of any blanket restrictions or overly restrictive practices.