Eskdale House Supported Living Service

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 service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly 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 service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

People and their relatives felt involved in their care planning where required. One relative told us, “We are involved in care planning and reviews.” Another relative told us, “I feel really involved and the staff are always keeping me updated.”

Staff told us about how they provided person-centred care, and we generally observed this to be the case. One staff member told us, “I really understand people’s personal routines and needs. For example, what [person] likes for breakfast and the way they prefer to be supported with their personal care.”

People’s flats were personalised with photographs of loved ones and items personal to them displayed throughout.

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

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices. They were working particularly closely with the learning disability team. One staff member told us, “We are working with [specialist agency] to help us identify behavioural triggers and to support [person] in the right way.”

One health and social care professional told us, “Things seem to be better for [person] which indicates staff have taken on board our recommendations.”

The service was actively recruiting staff to ensure there was less reliance on agency staff and to ensure familiarity and consistent and continuous support for individuals.

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

Staff knew and met people’s communication needs and provided information in appropriate formats. We observed staff communicating with people using their communication preferences.

We observed meal and activity planning boards in people’s flats where appropriate.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service had not yet begun to formally ask people, relatives and staff about their views of the service, and to act on this feedback. There was no plan in place yet to conduct surveys or hold meetings with people or relatives about their care.

There was a Westmorland and Furness Council complaints policy which people and their relatives could follow, and we saw examples where the service used their duty of candour and responded to relatives about their concerns. However, we found where relatives raised issues directly with the registered manager, there was not always evidence of how these issues had been responded to.

One relative told us, “I am still waiting for a response from an issue I raised a few months ago and I am still waiting to be sent some information I requested.”

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

The service had systems to ensure people had regular access to medical professionals. For example, specialist health partners visited people in their flats or staff supported them to attend appointments to ensure their health needs were regularly reviewed.

The layout of the premises and location of people’s flats meant, where people had significant mobility needs, they were able to move around the building independently. Mobility aids and specialist equipment was made available to people where required.

People had access to 24-hour support from staff and management could be contacted when needed.

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.

Staff endeavoured to prevent or minimise the inequality in experience or outcomes for people.

People had access to cars and had Blue Badges where required to ensure they were able to access their local community freely. A Blue Badgeallows people with learning disabilities or severe mobility difficulties to park closer to their destinations, providing greater access to services and activities.

Staff had received training in equality, diversity and inclusion.

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’s care plans did not always include their aspirations and goals and how staff would support them to meet these. Where people’s aspirations were recorded, there was not always a plan about how people could be supported to achieve these. For example, where it was recorded 1 person wanted to participate in a sponsored activity or go on holiday, there was no plan in place for this.

People’s end of life preferences had not always been considered as part of their care planning.