Edwardian Care Home

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 remained requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Care plans included detailed information in relation to people’s histories, likes and dislikes, however, they lacked enough personalised information on how staff could meet their needs in areas such as promoting their mental health and supporting people in times of emotional distress.

Staff were able to describe what person-centred care meant to them. For example, a staff member said, “No 2 people are the same, their care should be individualised, according to their care plan, and as people would like it.” However, although people’s cultural needs were identified, some people’s cultural needs were not always met.

For example, we identified one person who did not receive support from the service to eat their preferred foods in line with their culture, and their family instead had to meet this need. We found another person living at the service was reliant on staff to take them into the community to enjoy their cultural food choices. People were asked to complete a ‘food survey’ in 2024, however, it was unknown whether people were able to try food from other ethnicities and cultures, as per their responses.

People’s rooms were not always personalised. We found a person’s bedroom was painted with pink walls and had floral pictures on display despite the occupant being male. Staff confirmed this would not be their choice of decoration.

.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.

However, we found that even though relative and resident meetings were regularly taking place with a full agenda and lots of conversation, there was no record of any actions set following these meetings. For example, residents and relatives spoke about activities they or their loved ones would like to attend, but it was unclear whether these activities had been organised.

Satisfaction questionnaires were distributed to people, relatives, staff, and professionals annually. An analysis of data was captured and an action plan implemented, however professionals feedback surrounding ‘areas for improvement relating to DoLS and safeguarding’ did not show in the service improvement plan.

Relatives knew who to contact if they needed to make a complaint about the service.

The provider supported people to access advocacy where required. People and relatives were able to make complaints about their care and treatment. The provider had a complaints policy. Processes were in place to investigate complaints; we saw evidence where complaints had been investigated, and action taken.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. The environment had not been adapted for people who are living with dementia, for example there was poor lighting and lack of signage making difficult for people to find their way around the home.

However, the provider made sure relevant referrals to external health professionals such as the falls team, district nurses and speech and language therapy (SALT) were made.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

We became aware of an alleged safeguarding incident whilst gathering feedback from relatives. This was discussed with the registered manager who was unaware of this incident. Furthermore, we found safeguarding concerns were not always identified or reported. (See our safe section for more about safeguarding concerns).

However, staff had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff knew what to do if a person said they were unhappy with their care. Another staff told us, “People are generally treated equally with care plans designed to meet individual needs."

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.