Eastview Residential Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 and others with kindness and respect. Throughout the inspection, we observed warm, compassionate and meaningful interactions between staff and people. Staff approached people with kindness, patience and empathy. A relative said, “It is the warmth of the staff and carers – they are living angels and they are giving respect.''

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds. People's care plans contained a good sense of the person. They included life histories, conversation topics, details of the people and things that mattered to them, and individual personality traits, creating a clear picture of each person.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. The provider did not employee an activities co-ordinator meaning it was unclear who was responsible for ensuring people had regular access to meaningful activity that met their needs and preferences. There was no weekly plan of activities for people to see what was available for them to do. We spoke to one staff member who told us that they sometimes carried out activities with people.

Opportunities for people to be involved in decisions about the service are missed. Although the service had an improvement plan in place, there was no evidence that people had been involved in it. People were not involved in planning menus. One staff member told us, “I set the menu with the cook, weeks 1 to 4, summer and winter menus.” This meant people had limited opportunities to exercise choice and control over aspects of their daily lives and the wider development of the service.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs. They approached people with genuine kindness and compassion, whilst remaining alert to changes in need and responding to them attentively. One relative told us, “Another time his blood pressure dropped, they told us that they got the doctor in, he was fitted with a pacemaker, they picked up on that.” This demonstrated that staff knew people well and were able to recognise changes in their wellbeing, ensuring they received timely support and access to healthcare services when needed.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. The provider's arrangements for supporting and engaging staff required improvement. Staff supervision took place annually; however, records did not show that staff wellbeing was routinely discussed or reviewed with them. Supervision records consisted largely of tick-box forms, with limited evidence of reflective discussions, individual development, or meaningful two-way conversations.

Staff meetings were infrequent, taking place only twice a year. Although the provider had a standard agenda template, the meeting minutes did not evidence that all agenda items were discussed. Staff wellbeing and morale were not included as standing agenda items, and records did not include attendee lists, agreed actions, or evidence that information had been shared with and understood by all staff. This meant the provider could not be assured that staff were receiving regular opportunities to discuss their wellbeing, reflect on their practice, or contribute to service improvements. It also limited management oversight and the effectiveness of communication across the staff team.

Despite this we received positive feedback from the staff about the support they received from the management team. One staff member said, ''Working at Eastview care home, it is not seen as a workplace, it is seen as a home, a little family.''