Evelyn House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 were at the centre of their care and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. However, people’s care records did not always factor in all of their needs and lacked personalised details in some cases.

Care plans contained information on people’s assessed needs and the support arrangements that were in place. This helped staff understand people’s needs and the best ways to work with them. However, we found cases where the written information was either generic or not sufficiently clear. For example, a person’s care plan stated, “[Person] engages in meaningful activities with 1-to-1 [staff] support to promote emotional regulation and wellbeing.” The care plan did not provide any details on what the meaningful activities were for this person. The person’s personal care risk assessment stated they preferred daily baths which contradicted information in their care plan that stated they preferred “a full-body wash once a week and a shower”.

In contrast, there were other sections of people’s care plans which contained detailed and person-centred information. Also, staff involved people in regular discussions about their care and support needs. People had requested to visit the zoo in a recent meeting and staff had identified dates for this outing.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff ensured people received effective, well-coordinated and timely care and support from other health and social care services. They did this by making referrals promptly when needed and sharing information effectively. This minimised disruptions during appointments and reduced people’s anxiety.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff communicated to people in their preferred ways. The registered manager told us information was provided to people in ways they understood and they were equipped to supply information in different formats if needed, such as Easy Read.Easy Read is a way of making written information easier to understand, using simple sentences and images.

The service supported people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had a clear complaints procedure and maintained a record of complaints made by people and/or their relatives. The records showed a complaint from a relative which the managers had acknowledged and addressed. Staff supported people to raise concerns and make suggestions. A relative told us they could contact the manager if they were concerned about the care and support provided to their loved one.

The service prompted visitors to leave feedback after their visit to the service.

The service made sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. Staff considered people’s individual needs and protected characteristics when developing their care and support plans.

The premises were accessible and specialist equipment, such as mobility aids, were provided to people who needed it. This ensured people were not put at a disadvantage because of their disabilities or other protected characteristics.

However, we found the kitchen was kept locked and people did not have access to it. The managers told us they had made the decision to lock the kitchen due to health and safety concerns. We explained to the managers any restriction that could impact accessibility or people’s independence must be justified and clearly recorded for each person affected. The managers told us they were working with people by providing alternative means to ensure people’s independence was not affected. For example, one person had access to their own fridge in their room.

Staff supported people to access external services when needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people fairly, respected their rights and wishes, listened to their views and supported them in achieving their desired and personal outcomes. Staff also understood people’s right to receive care and support that met their individual needs.

Staff planned activities and events in line with people’s individual needs, interests and wishes. We observed staff actively encouraging people to take part in activities to reduce the risk of social isolation. Staff respected people’s chosen identities and the managers told us people were offered the opportunity to practice their faith as per their wishes.

This quality statement primarily relates to end of life care. At the time of the assessment, the service did not support anyone who was at the end of their life. However, the registered manager told us they were prepared to provide end of life care to people if needed. They would implement end of life care plans and work with palliative care teams.