Eagle Wood Neurological Care Centre

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

We observed staff had positive interactions with people and spoke about them in a kind and respectful way. People’s individual preferences and needs were sought and understood by staff. Guidance was available for staff to respond to people’s immediate care needs to reduce the risk of avoidable distress or discomfort. Staff told us they felt the provider had very good systems and processes in place to support their wellbeing and development.

This service scored 80 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us they found the management team and staff, patient, kind and caring. One person told us, “[I have] always been treated respectfully.”

One relative said, “It’s like a big family. It is very reassuring for me. It is worth the [travel distance]. They really care. They love [person] for who [person] is.” Another relative said, “[Staff] are all friendly and very nice.” A third relative told us, “The care staff are 110%. They are kind and have a mild manner.”

Staff relationships with people were caring, supportive and kind. Staff were confident in their knowledge of people’s needs, and how they liked to be supported.

Staff demonstrated to us they knew people well, and where people were unable to make their needs known, staff knew their specific preferences. Staff told us they gained information from people and their relatives to find out preferences, and how best to offer emotional support and security to promote their wellbeing.

We received feedback from visiting health and social care professionals about the kind and caring attitude of staff.

We observed staff were knowledgeable and skilled to provide meaningful care. People were supported to spend their time in a way they chose, this included walking and moving around the environment. Staff were seen to engage positively, ensuring people were supported safely. Staff recognised shorter activities were important to some people, and this was encouraged safely.

The registered manager and unit managers completed regular checks to review people’s care experience. This included audits, observations and feedback requests. Staff training had a focus upon kindness, compassion, dignity and person-centred care.

People and relatives told us care staff knew their individual preferences and requirements and this knowledge was used to inform their care, support and to deliver specific social, cultural and religious activities. For example, 1 person told us staff were supporting them to organise and deliver a specific talk about their own experience of their health condition and their health journey. The person, and staff were very positive about how this has empowered the person to share their experiences, and to offer staff and other professionals the insight into their experience.

Relatives told us they were involved in their loved one’s support and care planning, where appropriate. One relative said, “[Person] was treated as an individual and with respect.”

The registered manager explained how they promoted people’s religious needs. This included maintaining contact with people’s chosen ministers of faith or assisting people to make new connections through the local community.

Staff ensured privacy whilst assisting people, and we saw bedroom and bathroom doors were knocked on before entering and closed appropriately. Staff did not speak about people in front of others, and specific areas, such as staff offices, were used for staff handovers and meetings.

We found improvements were needed for 2 people who required support with communication. One person had an electronic communication device, and we found them without access to it, the device had no power and clear direction relating to this communication device and its use was not known by staff nor clearly detailed in the person’s care plan. Another person required more individualised support to ensure their verbal communication needs were met with support from staff who knew their first language, and with appropriate use of translation aids.

The registered manager took immediate action to review this during the assessment timescale, access and power for the electronic device was gained as well as care plans updated and staff informed of how to use it. Review of staff deployment took place to ensure a person was supported regularly by staff who spoke and understood their first language and a translation device review took place. By the end of the assessment timeframe, we were confident the registered manager had reviewed and implemented the necessary communication support and care plans were reviewed and updated. Furthermore, reviews took place for other people who used communication aids to ensure their support was appropriate.

People told us their independence, choice and control was respected. People told us staff supported them physically with turning pages of books or magazines, which allowed them to continue reading. People were asked their preferences on staff gender and preferences on when they wished to receive support. People were able to personalise their bedrooms as much, or as little as they wanted to.

Visitors were welcomed to the service by staff, and dedicated staff were available at reception, and administration staff available on the individual units. One relative told us, “I’ve never seen any of the staff be unkind or say something they shouldn’t.”

Staff understood the importance of maintaining people’s right to choose and promote choice at every opportunity. This encouraged people to do what they could for themselves, where possible, and ensured people were able to make decisions with support, if needed. This allowed people to maintain interests, skills and abilities.

A staff member told us, “It is really important to set up open communication, learning about the [person and] what they like to do, and have done in their lives.”

We observed people being treated as individuals and their choices were respected by staff. Throughout our visits to the care home, we observed a regular choice of activities was not always planned, and taking place. We spoke with the registered manager and nominated individual about this and found regular lengthy activities were not always successful, due to the needs of people, and the knowledge people responded more positively to shorter activities.

We observed staff spent time with people undertaking the person’s chosen activity, and staff supported people to spend time doing activities of importance to them. This included using electronic devices, spending time in the activities room, completing puzzles or games, and watching TV.

A consistent and established staff team helped make sure staff knew the people they were supporting well. The provider used a digital records system which meant staff had immediate access to people’s information and care plans. Care plans included information for staff which encouraged support and care in line with the person’s individual needs and wishes.

During our assessment the registered manager, and staff team, were dedicated to increasing short activity opportunities for people, and understood the importance of documenting the activities undertaken. The registered manager and management team, regularly undertook digital record audits to ensure people were supported with individual activities of interest.

People and their relatives told us staff responded quickly, when they needed assistance, or if they were unwell. This included seeking emergency assistance if needed. People told us staff were responsive to their needs.

Staff demonstrated clear understanding and knowledge of what to do in the event of a person becoming unwell. This included contacting emergency services and on call manager support in the event of an incident or emergency. We found the registered manager had worked with staff to ensure staff were confident on what to do in the event of a concern.

We observed staff were deployed effectively to ensure response to peoples planned and immediate needs.

Staff told us they felt supported by the provider and management team. Staff said they felt the training was good, and supportive to their needs. Staff told us managers had a holistic approach to staff support and wellbeing. Staff told us of their pride when being nominated for specific care industry awards and staff also had pride for their colleagues who received nominations. One staff member told us, “[The provider] is family orientated.” Another staff member said, “Support has been amazing – people always there to show [you] systems and hold your hand, guiding you.”

We spoke with the providers ‘joy and wellbeing partner’ who provided direct support and assistance to staff at the care home. They demonstrated to us a wide range of employee assistance programmes and community links which enabled them to signpost staff to supportive programmes. National awareness months were focused on to further promote wellbeing, support and enablement.

The provider was proactive and thorough in their provision of wellbeing support for the workforce. This included medical and financial considerations, and specific staff safety processes. The provider had specific processes in place to support staff with their professional registrations and development, which had a positive impact on staff. We found through our discussions and observations with staff these provisions were welcomed and appreciated.

We observed specific staff guidance and support was available for staff. This included a dedicated staff wellbeing and a HR team. Furthermore, information was placed in staff areas to ensure staff knew who they could talk to about any concerns they may have for their wellbeing. The staff wellbeing team had links in the local community to ensure they could sign post staff to specific services.