Euxton Park 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

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

People were involved in decisions about their care and were given choices about how they wished to spend their day. For example, people said they could choose whether they had a shower or bath and decide which days they preferred this support.

Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and staff knew people well. Relatives were involved in care planning and attended best interest meetings when changes in people's needs were identified. One relative said, "The staff do ring me if there is anything my relative needs," which demonstrated efforts to involve families in decisions about care.

However, feedback highlighted that activities were not always planned in a person-centred way. Some people said there were limited opportunities to participate in activities that matched their individual interests and preferences. One person said, "I would like more activities that are suitable to me. I don't like making cakes." Another person said, "The activities are not interesting or suitable for me." This showed that while people's care needs and daily preferences were generally considered, there were opportunities for the provider to further develop activities to ensure they reflected the diverse interests, hobbies and preferences of everyone living at the service.

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 delivered consistently and staff worked well with external professionals. Care records showed timely referrals and collaborative working. Health care partners reported the service was completing appropriate referrals through the care home team and the advice was always followed.

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

People were given information in a way which met their communication needs. Information was presented in different formats such as large print or verbally. Staff knew people’s communication needs well, and people were supported In line with the Accessible Information Standards. Relatives received information in their preferred way, either via email, phone call or face to face.

The provider ensured that signs around the home were displayed in a way that was accessible to all and information was available in different formats on request.

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 had systems in place to gather feedback from people and their relatives and used this information to make improvements. Relatives’ meetings were held, which were attended by members of the activity team and the chef. This gave people and their families opportunities to discuss their experiences and suggest changes to the service.

People felt that staff listened to their feedback and sometimes acted on concerns raised. One person said, "I gave feedback that food was coming to me cold; they listened and I now get my food quicker and it is warm." Another person said, "I have continued to give feedback that the vegetables are over cooked, and this has not improved yet, but we do now get fresh fruit instead of tinned, so they listen and act on some things."

This feedback demonstrated that the provider sought people's views and was responsive to some issues raised, although not all concerns had been fully addressed.

The provider also sent surveys to relatives to gather their views on the quality of care and support provided. The results were analysed to help identify areas for improvement and inform service development.

Overall, people and their relatives had opportunities to share their views and influence the service. The provider demonstrated a willingness to listen and make changes in response to feedback, although there remained some areas where people felt further action could be taken.

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

The premises and equipment were accessible for people and visitors. There was a ramp to access the main entrance and to access the garden space. All floors were accessible via a lift. People had mobility equipment if needed and people were encouraged to maintain physical independence. People and staff said there was no discrimination, and adjustments were made for individuals.

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 outcomes and said they felt safe and well cared for. Feedback from people and relatives was positive. Staff completed relevant training regarding equality and human rights, and there were relevant policies to support equality and reduce discrimination.

People were 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.

The provider supported people to plan for their future care and treatment. Care plans contained clear information about discussions that had taken place regarding future wishes, changing needs and important decisions. Where people experienced repeat hospital admissions, the provider held best interest meetings involving family members and those with Lasting Power of Attorney to ensure decisions were made in the person's best interests and reflected their preferences.

Staff discussed end of life care with people when they moved into the home and reviewed these discussions when people's wishes changed. Care plans clearly recorded people's preferred place of care, end of life preferences and any specific wishes they wanted to be respected, including their chosen funeral director where this had been agreed. Where people did not wish to discuss end of life care, staff respected this choice and revisited the conversation at a later date when appropriate.

The provider also supported people to achieve short-term goals that were important to them. This was particularly evident for people receiving respite care or recovering from illness, injury or a fall. Care plans recorded goals and the support people needed to achieve them. One person said, "I am planning to go home this week and the staff have helped me reach this goal by encouraging me to walk with the frame and also helped me gain confidence to try again with my walking stick."

Overall, people were supported to plan for their future and make decisions about their care. Staff involved relatives and representatives where appropriate, respected people's choices, and encouraged people to work towards goals that promoted their independence and wellbeing.