Archived: Ermington 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were supported and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Some care plans were inconsistent and did not always contain sufficient detail to enable staff to provide person led care. This meant people may not receive care that met their individual needs and preferences. For example, some care plans contained contradictory information about their social preferences. Some care records lacked personalisation. One person’s care plan did not contain informationabout their communication preferences, food and drink preferences or close family members. We spoke with this person during the assessment, and they said this information was important to them.

We received a number of concerns about the laundry provision at the service, with one person saying, “Some of my laundry has gone missing. I never know what is going to come back”. Another told us, “I’ve had laundry issues. I’ve lost about 12 t- shirts. It’s all marked but I think the names get washed out in the machines.” One person we spoke with during the assessment told us they were not wearing their own clothes that day but joked as they felt the jumper they were wearing suited them. This did not evidence a person centred approach to care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and there were systems in place to ensure appropriate referrals had been made. However, not all health concerns had been identified and escalated as required.

We saw referrals had been made to other healthcare professionals to support people with their identified needs. People benefited from a staff team who knew them well. This helped ensure people received continuity in their care. However, some health professionals we spoke with raised concerns around untimely referrals and care continuity. Examples we were provided with related to facial swelling, which the provider disputed as inaccurate information, and the failure to escalate concerns when a person had not opened their bowels for 11 days. This failure to escalate and integrate care placed people at significant risk.

The provider had a process in place to ensure continuity of care, for example, if a person was admitted into hospital the relevant information could go with them via the care planning system.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were not aware of their care records or other information held about them.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says people should get the support they need in relation to communication. We identified some records where improvements were required to expand on people’s communication abilities and preferences.

Most people’s care records included information about how they communicated and guidance for staff in how to effectively communicate with people. However, none of the people we spoke with were aware they had a care record or how they could access it. One person we spoke with commented, “I’ve no idea what’s going on. I just take each day as it comes and rely on staff.” All of the providers care records were held electronically so it was not evident people had, or were offered, information in a format that suited them. We fed this information back to the provider.

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.

There were systems and processes in place for people and their relatives to feedback into the service. Resident meetings were held and minuted. The minutes from October 2025 showed concerns were raised by people about personal items going missing and requests about more room cleaning. There were surveys sent out for relatives to respond to give feedback. Only 3 relatives had responded to a recent survey. Within the responses, 1 relative responded positively, and 2 other comments related to concerns around staffing and maintenance. The provider had a, ‘You said, we did’ process to provide feedback to people and their relatives when issues had been raised at meetings.

The provider had a complaints policy in place, and we saw this in a communal area. There were records maintained of concerns and complaints.

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

Staff supported people to access health care services where appropriate. No concerns were received from people or their relatives about equitable access to health partners.

People were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them. We saw 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 diversity and equality training. Additional training was provided in relation to person-centred care. This training supported staff to be aware of the importance of ensuring people were not subject to inequality or discrimination. Staff, people and their relatives did not identify any concerns to us about discrimination or inequity in care and treatment outcomes.

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.

Some people’s care plans contained information about how staff should support them at the end of their life. We discussed the inconsistent level of recording within care records with the provider. They advised that as part of the admission process or shortly after admission, the service discussed people’s end of life care planning decisions with them. The provider stated that not everyone wishes to discuss this as some can find it traumatic or distressing, but in this event no record was made. The provider stated the recording of these conversations would be reviewed.