Edenmore Nursing 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’s care was planned in an individualised way and regularly reviewed. Care plans detailed people’s preferences and backgrounds to enable staff to support them in a personalised way.One person’s record read, “[Person’s name] needs some help in choosing appropriate clothes for the conditions and selecting clothing he likes to wear. Prefers to be comfortable and smart clothing during the day and pyjamas at night.”

Relatives felt informed about care and treatment provision and when changes were made. It was clear they had been involved in care record development. One said, “Staff know him well. They asked a lot of questions about his history.”

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.

We saw prompt referrals had been made to other healthcare professionals to support people with their identified needs. People benefited from a regular, stable staff team who knew them well. This helped ensure people received continuity in their care. People’s relatives told us staff had made referrals to health and social care professionals when required.

The provider had a process in place to ensure continuity of care, for example if a person was admitted into hospital the correct information would go with them.

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

The registered manager told us when people moved into the service, they or their relative were given information about the service. This included information such as fees, the role of a Lasting Power of Attorney and capital depletion referral information. They advised us that all documentation is currently under review to ensure it was in the most understandable format and clear to read.

The registered manager understood their duties under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and made sure alternative communication formats were available, when required. They told us nobody currently needed additional support but could provide examples of where this had been previously used.

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 a complaints policy in place; however, the registered manager told us no formal complaints had been received for a long period of time. There were meetings held for people and their relatives to allow them to keep up to date with changes in the service and to feedback information personal to them. There was a regular newsletter which was shared with people and their relatives.

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

We saw evidence of appropriate and timely healthcare appointments being made for all people who lived at the service. People were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them. Family and friends of people were able to visit when they wished and were made welcome by the staff team.

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

Care staff had completed equality and diversity training. Staff, people and their relatives did not identify any concerns to us about discrimination or inequity in care and treatment outcomes.

Care plans were written in a person-centred way unique to the individual, and staff understood the importance of supporting people without discrimination.One staff member told us, “All the family members [people using the service] are all different and great, and each has their own different personality. They are not just another resident; they are a family member.”

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.

Advanced care plans were in place, which included information such as whether people wished to go to hospital if their health deteriorated or if they preferred to remain at the service.We provided feedback to the registered manager that people’s end of life care plans could have more personalised details as well as people’s clinical needs.

We spoke with the registered manager about end-of-life care. They explained about a recent scenario where they had personally supported a person in the last few days of their life to travel to the local pub and meet their friends and have an ice cream on the way back.

The service worked closely with a local hospice who provided positive feedback to us. They said, “The staff at Edenmore are very approachable and respond to advice given in palliative care, whether this is for medication or general advice. I believe this leads to good outcomes for people within our joint care.”