Evelyn 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. Our evidence under this key question demonstrated the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 18, in relation to staffing.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and support were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Prior to moving to the service, managers carried out a full assessment of people’s needs by engaging with them and the relevant health and social care professionals. Pre-admission assessments comprised reviewing a range of health and care records, and the information gathered was used by staff to develop people’s care plans. Following admission to the service, staff reviewed people’s needs regularly and documented any changes in their care plans. People’s assessed needs covered areas such as communication, mental health, moving and handling, daily living, independence and physical health.

Overall, staff knew people’s needs well and how to support them accordingly. However, one relative felt staff did not fully understand and could not always manage a person’s complex needs. But the relative also said staff were trying their best.

Staff planned and delivered people’s care 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. While people had access to sufficient foods and drinks, we were concerned about the effectiveness of how staff engaged with people when assessing their eating and drinking needs.

The care plans for some people did not contain clear information on their eating and drinking needs. One person told us they liked spicy food but this was not available for them. Information on this person’s food preferences and favourite meals was not recorded in their care plan. The registered manager provided this information following the inspection. The service was in the process of updating their menu and shared a copy of the draft menu with us. The new proposed menu included a wide range of diverse meals, which meeting records showed people were eager to try. However, although it was a draft menu, we were concerned that 2 out of 3 items requested by people in a recent meeting were not included. We fed this back to the registered manager who told us the draft menu was still under development and updated the menu following the assessment to include people’s chosen meals.

People were able to choose what they wanted to eat on the day, and where and when they wanted to have their meals. We observed the kitchen was fully stocked with fresh fruits and vegetables, different types of meats and snacks such as yoghurts and biscuits. Some people chose to eat out which staff facilitated.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff collaborated with other professionals to ensure the care and support provided to people were smooth and effective.

Staff maintained a close working relationship with external professionals, such as community psychiatric nurses, GPs, mental health teams and chiropodists, and shared information effectively. This coordinated approach ensured continuity of care and minimal stress was caused to people.

The service had developed personalised ‘hospital passports’ for people which provided hospital staff with key information about people’s needs. The purpose of these documents is to reduce anxiety and help people achieve positive outcomes when they visit the hospital. However, these documents lacked fundamental information, such as information on people’s communication needs, behaviour and risk management, which is essential to ensure people have a positive experience. The registered manager updated the hospital passports following the inspection to make sure they contained the essential information for each person.

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.

People’s health needs, including the support they needed to maintain good oral hygiene, were clearly documented and understood by staff. Staff facilitated and supported people to attend health appointments when needed. Staff also offered people healthy food options and encouraged them to go out for walks.

Staff monitored people’s health closely and escalated concerns promptly. Staff also maintained clear logs of people’s appointments and health visits.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and support needs to continuously improve them. Staff ensured outcomes for people were positive and consistent, and that they met the required expectations.

Staff engaged with people in discussions about their care and support needs. This meant people were able to express their views and provide feedback on their care. This approach made it possible for staff to understand what mattered to people and develop care and support plans that were consistent with people’s expectations.

The service informed people about their rights around consent and staff respected these when delivering person-centred care and support.

The service provided people with clear and consistent information and encouraged them to make informed decisions about their care. Information on people’s mental capacity and decision-making abilities were clearly documented. People had access to independent advocacy services when needed.

While people’s care plans stated their representatives and relatives were involved in care planning and making decisions about their care, 2 relatives told us they were not consulted on such matters. We raised this with the registered manager who explained how they engaged people’s relatives and the challenges they faced in doing so. Nonetheless, they told us they would investigate this issue.