Edward House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating remains requires improvement. This meant people did not always felt well-supported, cared for and treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed that people were treated with kindness and respect and people we spoke with supported this. One person said, “They always knock before they come in and ask if it is ok to do things with me.”

We spoke with colleagues from other organisations who also agreed that staff treated them respectfully. One told us, “Improvements have been made over the last year. Staff are nice and welcoming.”

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did listen to concerns about safety but lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There were no processes or systems in place when incidents had occurred to review what had happened and prevent re-occurrence. For example, the data for incidents and accidents was collated but there was no analysis to identify themes and trends to put measures in place to avoid incidents recurring and reduce the risk of harm to people.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. However, they did not always recognise where there were opportunities to increase people’s independence, for example, providing someone with equipment so they could eat more independently.

People we spoke with felt their autonomy and independence was promoted. People told us they could make choices, for example when to get up or when to go to bed, when to have a shower, and staff respected this. We observed staff encouraging people to do as much as they reasonably could do for themselves.

Care plans recorded people’s capacity to make decisions and, where people were unable to make a decision independently, decisions were made appropriately and in people’s best interests.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We saw examples of where people required immediate assistance during lunch time observations to support their health and wellbeing. These needs were not responded to promptly but this was not because staff didn’t care it was due to a lack in the team’s knowledge around certain health conditions. This was discussed with the management team at the time who provided assurance that this would be addressed with the team and external support would be sought for the person.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did listen to concerns about safety but lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There were no processes or systems in place when incidents had occurred to review what had happened and prevent re-occurrence. For example, the data for incidents and accidents was collated but there was no analysis to identify themes and trends to put measures in place to avoid incidents recurring and reduce the risk of harm to people.