Earsdon Grange 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 remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People experienced person centred and tailored care in a way that mattered to them. Staff used life story information and “More about me” documents to understand people’s histories, preferences and routines and this was reflected in detailed, individual care plans and risk assessments. Staff supported people in a person-centred manner as they had taken time to understand what was important to them.

Relatives told us the home felt warm and welcoming. They added being able to personalise their rooms had made it homely and staff support during the moving in process had transformed their quality of life.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care was well coordinated and supported by effective MDT working so people experienced smooth and consistent care. Regular input from the GP practice, district nursing team and other health professionals, including dietitians helped staff to manage complex needs such as diabetes, wound care and nutrition.

Healthcare professionals told us referrals were “appropriate and timely,” with staff responding to recommendations promptly. They also commented positively about staff knowledge, their caring approach, team-working and cooperation to ensure people’s care was meeting their needs.

The service held regular MDT meetings in the home, and care reviews involved people and their relatives. Staff updated care plans with new and agreed care and treatment decisions. These included recommendations and when staff should seek further medical advice in situations where a person’s health may deteriorate.

People and relatives described there was continuity in care from staff they knew well and who had a detailed awareness of their care needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and those important to them had access to clear information about the service and about their care. The provider used a secure electronic care planning system which enabled staff to review and update care records in real time.

The service had systems in place to meet the Accessible Information Standard, including easy-read, large‑print, braille and multi-lingual documents. Staff also used technology such as software packages, social media and tablets, and communication aids for people who had difficulty expressing themselves verbally. Information about how to raise concerns, contact external bodies, support services and give feedback was displayed in communal areas.

Relatives told us communication was “always very good” and described being promptly informed about incidents such as falls with open and honest explanations and follow‑up.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider and registered manager listened to people and their relatives and used their views to shape care and the wider running of the home.

There were regular meetings for people and their families to discuss care related matters, activities, dining and the environment. Records of these meetings were kept demonstrating actions taken in response, including the environmental improvements needed and changes to the activity planner.

Surveys from people, relatives and staff were carried out. This helped the provider and registered manager to identify themes and drive improvement. The home displayed examples of how feedback had led to changes as part of their “You said, we did” initiative.

People and relatives told us staff, and the registered manager were approachable, listened to their concerns and acted on requests, for example arranging healthcare appointments and responding to worries about carpets and garden maintenance.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could choose to remain with their existing GP practice and other health services to maintain continuity of care where they chose to do so. People had personal and private space within the home which they could call their own, they had fair access to communal facilities including lounges, dining areas, external gardens and to the support they needed. The home’s step‑free access, designated disabled parking and environmental adaptations supported people with mobility needs.

One healthcare professional commented, “Working closely with the home has enabled us all to maximise the care given to the residents and form strong working relationships.”

There were no restrictions on visiting and relatives described being able to come in freely, which supported people to maintain important relationships.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People experienced positive and consistent outcomes with a clear focus on happiness, enjoyment, quality of life and service improvement.

Care plans included information around people’s identity, things which were important to them, their wishes and relationships they wanted to maintain. The registered manager ensured people’s social and healthcare needs were fully considered and met.

Relatives described positive improvements in their loved one’s wellbeing after moving to the home, telling us they had a new lease of life through staff engagement, building therapeutic relationships, social contact and engaging in meaningful activities.

People were sensitively supported to think about and plan for their future care goals and objectives, including at the end of their lives.

Care plans recorded discussions, decisions and wishes and relevant supporting documentation evidenced plans for the future. This included advanced care plans, end-of-life care wishes, and these were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained valid.

Staff used care records, structured risk assessments, reviewed matters at MDT meetings to anticipate deterioration and agreed plans with people, their families and healthcare professionals around health and care needs and responses in the event of changes or deterioration in a person’s health.

Families told us they felt informed and reassured about future plans and appreciated the open and supportive communications, which helped them feel confident their loved ones would continue to be safe and well cared for throughout their time in the home.