Eastcroft Nursing Home

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

Staff assessed people’s needs which ensured care supported good outcomes to people and involved them. Their care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics. People were at the centre of their care and staff worked well with other services. Leaders supported a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of everyday work. At the last inspection in January 2023 the provider was in breach of regulations because they failed to ensure people’s care was provided in a person-centred way. At the time, staff had not always acted in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider made significant improvements and was no longer in breach of regulations at this assessment. The provider made improvements to the environment to meet the needs of people who lived with dementia. People’s individual needs were appropriately assessed and addressed in their care plans. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Throughout the inspection day, inspectors observed staff supported people in the least restrictive way, at the same time, ensuring people were safe. Staff provided care to people in line with current national best practice guidance and were aware how to address people’s specific health and care needs appropriately. Staff supported people to access other health and social care services when needed, so people could live healthier lives. People experienced care which was well-coordinated as staff worked well with other services. This ensured people experienced consistent and person-centred, timely care which resulted in good outcomes.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff knew people and their needs well. One staff member said, “We are a small team so we can share what we know about residents. We always have time to chat with them, sit and hold their hands and talk about family.” Another staff member told us, “Each person has a different character, and it is really nice to hear all their stories and childhood stories.”

The service admitted one person since the last inspection. Their pre-admission assessment lacked written detail with regards to the person’s previous living arrangements. However, staff knew the details of this. Staff engaged people in conversation based on their knowledge of people’s life stories and preferences.

People’s relatives told us people’s needs were well assessed as they were provided with person-centred and quality care which had positive impact. One relative said, “[Person’s] dignity has been restored since coming to Eastcroft. Their needs were properly assessed and as a result, they are very calm. This is a home where people are cared for as if they are family.”

People’s relatives told us staff delivered care in line with people’s individual needs and recognised national best practice. One relative said, “There was a huge effort to understand [person] before they moved in.”

Staff we spoke with explained to us how they ensured people’s care was person centred and addressed their individual needs. For example, staff knew how to support people living with dementia when they became distressed.

The provider delivered care in line with national guidance and evidence-based practice. For example, best practice around supporting people with swallowing difficulties was adhered to. A white board and colour coded trays for food and drink were set up in the kitchen for chef and kitchen staff to refer to and use for those residents that need modified food and drink. People had care plans in place for specific health conditions. This included information on how to provide safe care around diabetes or skin integrity.

The healthcare partners working with the home were complimentary around changes made to how staff communicated with them and how people’s care was coordinated.

Staff worked together as a team and communicated well. They made other staff aware of where they were going and what they were doing. Where people made requests, staff shared this with other staff, so they were aware. Staff meetings were regularly held to discuss any changes to the service and people’s needs. There were handovers and good communication channels in place.

People’s relatives told us staff worked well together and were supported by the managers to provide effective care. They told us staff informed them when people needed additional support and when referrals were made to other services, including healthcare professionals.

Staff knew how and when to refer people to other healthcare and social care services and were complimentary about teamwork in the home. One staff member said, “We are a friendly and small team, a good team with the residents as our priority.”

People’s relatives told us their loved ones were supported to access healthcare services when needed, for example to see a GP.

Staff told us they knew when and how to escalate people’s needs so appropriate referrals to healthcare services were made. This ensured people received timely and effective support to stay well. One staff member said, “We report to the nurse if residents are not well, or we are worried about anything. They will assess and call the GP if they are needed.”

There were clear systems and processes to refer people to healthcare and social care services when needed. The management team and nurses arranged dental and podiatry care and records confirmed people had access to this. ‘This is Me’ information was completed in detail and updated according to changes in people’s needs to be shared with healthcare staff in the event of hospital admission. ‘This is Me’ is a summary record of people’s needs, individual risks, preferences and wishes which enables effective sharing of information between health and care services when needed. People’s records confirmed referrals were made to GP and allied healthcare professionals in a timely manner.

People’s relatives told us staff provided care which brought good outcomes to people. One relative said, “[Person] has [health condition] and staff are aware of the level of support they need, and I see them giving this.”

People’s care and clinical records were robust and included evidence of good outcomes achieved by the care they were provided with. For example, people were supported to maintain their independence when mobilising, to avoid pressure area skin breakdown, or to eat safely and to drink enough. Hence, people maintained their abilities as long as possible and were protected from any avoidable harm and health issues.

Staff and managers told us how they ensured people’s care was person-centred, their changing risks were addressed and how care was regularly reviewed, so it achieved good outcomes for people. For example, nurses and managers were able to explain how they reviewed and addressed people’s health related risks.

People’s relatives told us people were asked for consent to care and encouraged to make their own choices. One relative said, “I see staff taking their time with [person] and never rushing them into making a decision. They always wait for a reply.” We saw staff spoke with people in a kind manner and offered choices, asking “Would you like …?”

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people’s rights, obtain consent for care and treatment to be provided and how to support people to express their choices. One staff member said, “If residents do not have capacity, we always have to take their best interests and show them choices. We can use pictures of food and show tea or coffee. Some people like to choose their clothes.”

The provider had clear policies, procedures and systems in place to ensure people’s rights and liberty were protected, their consent was sought, and mental capacity assessed when needed. People’s care records included information around their consent for care and treatment, how to support them to make their own decisions, what legal representation they had. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, their care records included relevant mental capacity assessments and information on how best interests’ decisions were made and how to support them in least restrictive ways. The manager submitted appropriate deprivation of liberty safeguards applications to the local authority when people required to be deprived of their liberty to provide them with necessary care and treatment, so they remained safe and well.