Eden House

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always regularly check, discuss and record people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed people’s needs well and understood their histories, preferences and routines. Staff used information to plan support around people’s choices, including activities, health appointments and daily tasks. Care plans included detailed personal information and long‑term assessments. However, although these had not always been regularly reviewed the provider had started to implement processes to ensure updates took place.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received compassionate and personalised care which met best-practice guidance. Staff supported 1 person with complex needs to attend appointments, regain weight and manage their eating patterns. Staff followed established clinical plans for conditions such as epilepsy and diabetes and worked with professionals including learning disability nurses to review people’s health.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked collaboratively and communicated well to support people’s care. They held daily handovers, coordinated rotas to ensure consistent support, and recorded shared information in the house diary. Staff described flexible shift cover and strong team relationships. One staff member said, “It’s good, we all work well together.” Staff worked effectively with external professionals, including learning disability nurses.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people to stay active and involved in activities that promoted their health and wellbeing. Staff encouraged people to make healthier lifestyle choices, including planning menus, taking turns cooking and exploring fitness options. One person proudly told us they had been supported and encourage to lose weight and explained how that had helped them to manage their health conditions. Staff also supported people’s emotional wellbeing. One person told us, “Staff know all about my [health history]. They support me.”

The provider did not always routinely record their monitoring of people’s care and treatment. However, outcomes were positive and consistent. They met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service achieved positive outcomes for people. One person described significant improvements in their health and confidence since moving to the home, and others had developed new skills, routines and activities. However, while outcomes for people were positive, some quality assurance processes were not up to date, which limited the provider’s ability to evidence how improvements were systematically monitored over time. Staff and managers carried out regular informal checks, but limited recording of risk assessments, reviews and actions meant leaders could not reliably demonstrate how they monitored trends and improvement. The provider, along with the senior staff member, had started to make changes in these areas.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff supported people to make choices about their care and daily lives, and people told us they were involved in decisions about activities, future plans and how they managed their routines. One person explained how the provider discussed changes in the home so everyone could share their views. People’s views were fully respected, and they were supported and encouraged to access independent advocacy when appropriate. People had consented to their care and treatment, and although there had been no changes in their capacity to do so, this had not been recently reviewed. The provider planned to review this with people.