Evelyn House

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. However, there were several factors that affected people’s privacy and dignity.

The physical layout of the service did not fully uphold people’s privacy and dignity. The main entrance to the service lead directly to the only dining area. This meant people’s mealtime experiences were potentially impacted by staff and visitors using this entrance. One person’s bedroom was directly accessible through the lounge, which meant their privacy and dignity could be impacted when entering and leaving their bedroom, and especially when other people would be in the lounge. Other people using the lounge could also cause disturbance to the person. The service did not have an office or a space where private meetings could be held. A staff member told us most meetings took place in the communal dining area, which could restrict people from using it. The registered manager told us they were in the process of building an office in the garden. This would ensure meetings could take place in private without preventing people from using and accessing the different parts of the service freely. The registered manager had also begun making plans to modify the bedroom entrance, for the person mentioned above, to protect their privacy and dignity. We will check these issues in the next assessment.

We observed kind, pleasant and respectful interactions between people and staff throughout the day of our inspection visit. A staff member made sure they lowered themself, so that they were at the same eye level with a person who was seated, as they were both having a conversation. Another staff member was seen to show a genuine interest in a person’s artwork, which appeared to have pleased the person. Feedback from relatives included, “Staff are very good” and “Staff seem lovely.” Staff spoke to us about the ways they supported people which focused on respecting their dignity and privacy. A staff member told us, “With patience and showing that you care, it gives meaning to people’s lives. I come to work just to see the people smile and it brings me so much joy.”

The service did not consistently consider people’s preferences or ensure these were clearly documented.

While staff constantly engaged with people and offered support as per their wishes, people’s care plans did not always contain details on their food preferences, likes and dislikes, important routines, the things they did in the past and culture. For example, one person’s care plan stated they enjoyed listening to music but contained no information on the type of music they liked. There were numerous instances where the language used in care plans was generic or lacked clear explanations. For example, one person’s care plan stated, “Cook and prepare all meals for [person], ensuring they are healthy, well-balanced, and aligned with their preferences.” However, the person’s preferences were not listed. Another person’s care plan instructed staff to provide calming strategies and reassurance during episodes of confusion or agitation but did not elaborate on what these strategies were. Following the inspection, the registered manager provided separate documents for people which contained certain specific information about them, such as their eating and drinking preferences, personal histories, religion and culture.

In contrast, for some people, there was clear and detailed information on their different needs, such as their faith, activities they enjoyed and communication strategies. This helped staff engage with people in effective ways while maximising their experiences and outcomes.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care and wellbeing.

While people shared the same accommodation, they had the opportunity to engage in activities of their own choosing and express their own unique identities, which staff respected. Staff supported people to be more independent by encouraging them to do things for themselves as much as possible. We observed staff offering respectful encouragement to a person who had reduced mobility to mobilise independently, at their own pace, using their walking aid. A relative told us, “Staff help [person] to be more independent.”

Staff supported people to remain active by engaging in a range of activities. An activity coordinator, who knew people well, visited the service regularly and together with the assistance of care staff, supported people to participate in their preferred activities. As it was a nice day, staff encouraged people to go spend time in the garden. We observed staff engaging with people in a lively and cheerful singing and dancing group session, which people appeared to have enjoyed. Staff also supported people in individual activities, such as puzzles, while respecting their choices all along. Staff maintained clear logs of people’s activities, including their level of engagement.

People were able to have visitors and go out to different places as per their wishes.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were alert to people’s needs and responded accordingly when they noticed changes. For example, one person experienced difficulties in taking their medicines in tablet-form and would often refuse to take them. Staff liaised with the relevant healthcare professionals to change the person’s medicines to liquid-form, which the person accepted. We also observed a person who was playing their music out loud on their device. A staff member intervened calmly and respectfully, and was able to divert the person outside. The person responded positively to the staff member. The staff member felt their action was necessary at the time in order not to disturb another 2 people who were sitting in the lounge.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from their managers. Feedback included, “Management is very good, caring, supportive and they always check”, “If I need anything, I can contact anyone” and “There are lots of training and support on how to keep people safe and well.” The provider supported staff who aspired to progress and acquire new skills.

By looking after the wellbeing of their workforce and empowering staff, the provider created and fostered an environment that also improved people’s experiences.