Eleanor Nursing and Social Care Ltd - Pantiles House

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 re-registered service.

This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 told us staff treated them as individuals and they received consistently good, person-centred care and support from the same group of staff who were familiar with their needs, preferences and daily routines. One person said, “I see the same carers faces everyday who come and help me in my flat. I have got to know them all pretty well over the years.”

Care records contained personalised information about people’s unique strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. Staff demonstrated good awareness of people’s individual needs and preferences were familiar with the term ‘person-centred’ and what this meant in terms of supporting people using the scheme.

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

People told us staff understood their care needs and that they worked well with multiple external health and social care professionals to consistently meet those needs.

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

The provider did not always ensure people were given information in a way they could easily understand. For example, information about people’s communication needs, and preferences was not always identified and included in their care plan. Peoples electronic care plans had a section entitled ‘Communication’ but these had not been completed in any of the care plans we sampled during our assessment. This is despite some people using the scheme who have specific sensory needs and whose first language might not be English. In addition, a person who was visually impaired was not offered any alternative audio versions of guides and procedures, so they could easily access information about the scheme they might find useful.

We discussed these issues with the managers at the time of this inspection. They acknowledged these failures and took immediate action to update everyone’s care plan to reflect their preferred method of communication which they shared with us. They also agreed to offer people information about the scheme in different formats which was tailored to meet their individual sensory needs and preferred method of communication, including the providers complaints procedures and the service users guide.

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. People told us they had regular opportunities to speak to the managers and staff and they felt listened too and involved in making decisions about the care and support they received. One person said, “The staff often come and see me in my flat to have a chat and ask how I’m doing.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us they could access the care and support they needed when they needed in accordance with their care plan.

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 were engaged and supported by staff to be included and have the same opportunity as others to receive the care and support of their choice. Staff understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly, and to receive care and support that met their specific needs. For example, managers and staff confirmed people had the right to choose the gender of staff who provided their intimate personal care.

Care plans contained detailed information about people’s spiritual and cultural needs. Staff were aware of people’s diverse spiritual and cultural needs and wishes and knew how to protect them from discriminatory behaviours and practices.

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.

People did not require any support with end of life care at the time of our assessment and staff had received end of life care training.

However, people and people important to them had not been actively encouraged or supported to make decisions about their end of life wishes. This was despite care plans having a section where individuals end of life care and support needs and wishes could be recorded.

We discussed this issue with the managers at time of this inspection. They agreed steps needed be taken to try and gather people’s wishes regarding their end of life care. If people and their families did not want to discuss this matter it still needed to be recorded and how they planned to revisit the subject in the future. Managers were able to provide evidence post inspection of implementing end of life care discussions for service users, they informed us that this was being applied to all service users since our inspection.