Eagle Wood Neurological Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s health and care needs were assessed to ensure the service could meet their needs. People were supported by staff who had received comprehensive training to provide effective support. Staff worked with other health professionals to ensure people received the right care and treatment. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and were aware of the importance of choice and consent.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People, or their relatives, if appropriate, were involved in the development of care plans and therapy plans when moving into the care home. Timed and ‘when required’ care reviews took place to ensure ongoing assessment of needs took place.

Staff told us they had the required information about people’s needs and how to support them. Staff told us they discussed people’s needs and any changes during formal meetings, and during staff handover sessions. Staff told us they had access to all the pre-admission, and ongoing assessment records which were needed, which helped to welcome and provide comfort to people when they moved into the care home.

Staff told us they had enough time to review and implement care plans and risk assessments, which ensured these were meaningful and completed with people, or their relatives, if appropriate.

The provider had a pre-assessment team which conducted the initial assessment process, and collection of information from health and social care partners to ensure a holistic approach to assessment took place.

A ‘resident of the day’ process was in place at the care home, this ensured each person’s needs were reviewed on a monthly basis by all departments.

We found care plans were detailed, effective and clear. Staff demonstrated to us they were aware of the providers processes for care planning, and these were regularly audited by the providers quality team.

People and relatives spoke positively about the quality of the meals, nutritional support, and snacks which were available. People had drinks readily available and were encouraged to drink fluids regularly.

One relative told us, “[Person] has no complaints about the food.” Another relative told us their loved one was being supported to eat in a safe way as part of their rehabilitation support.

Staff knew the people they supported well and recognised how social and cultural needs were an important element of nutrition and hydration. Staff knew people’s dietary needs and who required support at mealtimes. Modified meals and special diets, such as blended meals, were provided, and kitchen staff told us they had good communication systems with the care team.

The provider ensured mealtimes were regularly observed to ensure the experience was a comfortable and pleasurable experience for people.

Where appropriate, people were supported by relevant health professionals to ensure their health needs, including eating and drinking needs, were appropriately assessed.

The registered manager had systems in place to share any information about good practice with staff. This included during team meetings, handovers, individual 1:1 meetings and through electronic communication channels.

The provider was proactive and actively supported best practice and initiative development. This included involvement in national research partnerships with recognised universities, and development activities to improve outcomes for people.

People’s care plans contained information about their health and care needs. This ensured information was available and ready to share to promote consistent care.

Relatives told us they were happy with the support and services which were provided at the care home by the specialist team. For example, 1 relative said, “[The care service] is absolutely great. The physio was amazing. [Person’s] progress is down to Eagle Wood. I would recommend it to anyone.” Another relative said, “[Person’s condition] has improved due to the continuity of staff. I know [Person] is in great hands.” Another relative told us, “I know they take good care of [person]. We are more than pleased with [the staff]. It is a load off our minds.”

Staff were able to tell us about people’s care needs, and what support they required. The management team told us they worked with different health and social care services to support people’s needs. This included the providers own multidisciplinary team of physiotherapists and neuropsychologists.

One staff member demonstrated to us how their work with dieticians and nutritional specialist nurses enabled them to provide specific healthcare support to individuals.

We received feedback from the providers multidisciplinary team who told us staff worked in collaboration to ensure outcomes for people were positive. This included multidisciplinary team meetings and assessments.

We received feedback from partners which recognised the diverse teams who support the people who live at the care home. The involvement of a wide range of healthcare professionals meant relationships were built, and all staff were committed to improving communication channels. This included in person reviews and using electronic communication methods.

The management team had processes and systems in place to ensure information relating to people’s needs was available for staff and other health professionals working with the care home.

Handovers took place between staff teams and we found the handover process was detailed, person centred and thorough.

People and their relatives told us they were supported to access other healthcare professionals as needed, such as GPs and dentists. One relative told us, “A dietician is involved in [person’s] care. [Person] has put on weight.” Other relatives told us their loved ones required specialist diets, and they knew of the arrangements in place for professional reviews, and how specialist provisions were delivered to the care home.

Staff were knowledgeable of people’s needs and care requirements. For example, staff knew people’s specific dietary requirements and preferences, furthermore, they understood measures which were in place to promote health and wellbeing.

The care plans we reviewed contained information and guidance on scheduled appointments and the specific support people required with these. Staff had links with GP practices and reviews took place electronically and in person. Staff told us they had confidence in the referral processes to external and internal healthcare teams. Care plans also contained guidance for staff to assist them to promote healthy choices whilst respecting people’s rights to choose and make decisions for themselves, where this was possible.

People and their relatives told us they received positive outcomes from staff and management. Where relatives indicated improvements in communication could be made, we found the registered manager had acted upon this.

One relative told us, “[Staff] have got [person] to eat better, and [person’s] weight has stabilised and is now starting to increase bit by bit. [Staff] have also corrected the use of [medicines] which has helped greatly.” A relative also shared with us “Care is very good. The staff know [person]. We are funded by [commissioner] and they have withdrawn the 1-2-1 [staff support] element at times but [the care home] have carried on supplying it while we appeal the [commissioner] decision.”

The staff we spoke to told us they were committed to providing person centred care and support.Staff told us they had time to spend with people on an individual basis, and we observed this during the assessment.

We found care plans were detailed and people’s support needs and goals were recorded, reviewed and monitored. Care plans reflected the care, which was provided, and they were individualised. The detail allowed for staff to provide meaningful care, support and communication for people, and we found the care provided was of good quality due to this.

People were encouraged and supported to make decisions about their care and treatment where they were able to do so. People and their relatives received effective input and support from staff and advocacy services, when it was required. Relatives told us of their involvement, and how staff sought their input and consent, where it was legally appropriate to do so. One relative said, “[Staff] always phone me if [person] needs me. They always ask my permission for vaccinations.”

The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff told us they were aware of who had a DoLS authorisation in place, and said the information surrounding the specific authorisation, and how to support the person, was available within their care plan.

We spoke to a staff member who worked at the care home, they told us there were reviews taking place surrounding best interest assessments and mental capacity assessments. These reviews were being completed, and staff understood there were many specific conditions people were living with, and a focus was to consider the person and how they present. A person-centred approach was notable, and staff told us, “Our residents are more than just having a good or bad day.”

People’s rights were respected, and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Staff had completed the required training and people’s mental capacity was assessed in line with the MCA.

The registered manager had specific monitoring tools which allowed them to maintain oversight of the authorisation’s which were in place for people.

CCTV was used at the location in communal areas. We found all required policies; legal and consent requirements were in place.