Edward 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

People were not always supported to have choice and control or make decisions about how their care and support was provided. They were not always encouraged and helped by staff to do as much as they could for themselves, to maintain their independence. People were not always supported to understand their rights or told how the service would make sure these were respected. People’s friends and families were free to visit them with no restrictions. People were not always encouraged to take part in activities, either at the service or in the community which would help support their independence, health, and well-being.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s dignity was not always protected. We observed an incident where a person was unwell, a privacy screen was put in place, but there was another resident present on the same side of the screen that the person. This meant they could observe the person and prevented privacy. We observed staff talking about people’s care and support needs Infront of other people. For example, staff discussed in the dining room people’s incontinence support. This meant people’s privacy and dignity was not always maintained. We observed that people were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff spoke to people in a warm and caring manner, and we noted that during support with moving and positioning, staff spoke to the person, so they were aware of what staff were doing and offered verbal reassurance.

People told us they were treated kindly and with respect. One person told us, “Yes staff are fine and caring.”

Staff and management were able to explain how they treated people with kindness and dignity. One staff member told us during personal care they ensure peoples dignity is maintained. Another staff member told us, “When I have time, I try and interact with them. When it comes to personal care, I ensure that they don’t feel embarrassed and always maintain their dignity. I am here for the people; I treat them how I would like to be treated. I always make sure I try my best.” However, during our onsite assessment we observed staff had not always maintained people’s dignity. Therefore, we were not assured staff always put their training into practice.

Partners had raised concerns with us. The local authority told us they had concerns regarding the support and care people were receiving at Edward House. The NHS medicine team identified concerns with medicines management in September 2023 and NHS IPC team had also raised concerns.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

Staff told us people were not supported to maintain their independence and were not given choice and control over their care and support. One staff member said, “We have a shower chart on each shift and people can only have a shower on that day. There is no choice when the resident wants a shower. If people are not showered on their day, I then have to go in for a formal discussion with management and could get a disciplinary, but this isn't about choice for the residents. People have asked for a shower, and we have to say it’s not your slot for a shower.”

People told us they had a choice of what time they can get up and go to bed. One person told us, “No restrictions, choose when you want to go to bed, no set time, call someone when I’m tired.”

The provider failed to ensure there were robust systems and process in place to ensure that people were given choice and control regarding their care and support. People had not been involved in planning their care. This meant people had not been given choice and control on how they would like to be supported by staff.

People were not always given choices. For example, we observed staff had not given people a choice of what they would like to drink during their teatime meal. We observed 2 members of staff give everyone blackcurrant dilute, without asking people. We observed care and support was task focused. For example, during mealtimes staff told people where to sit. One staff member said, “put [person] and [person] on that table because I have to complete their checks while eating.” We observed one person asking if they could go outside and do an outside activity. A staff member told them “When the weather is warmer.” This meant people did not have choice and control regarding their care and support.

Staff did not always respond effectively to people’s immediate needs. We observed call bells ringing which were not answered promptly. We observed that one call bell had been removed from a person's room and had been left in a bathroom. When the inspection team activated this call bell it was noted that staff were not aware of where the device had been left. This placed people of risk if they required urgent staff care and support. We observed that the service did not always have the correct equipment in place for people. For example, a person who was unwell required the use of a full body sling but there were none present at the service. We observed staff attempt to use another sling which was not safe, and the inspection team intervened. This meant that people’s immediate care needs were not effectively responded to, placing them at risk of potential harm.

People told us that they were able to communicate their immediate needs, to receive the right type of support. One person said, “[staff] support definitely, I’m quite good on my legs, if I needed support, they would be here straight away to help me.”

Staff were not always able to meet people’s immediate needs due to staffing levels and staff competencies. A staff member said, “We don't always meet people’s needs, especially at weekends. We use a high level of agency, and agency staff don't know the resident, don’t have domestics staff, not always have tea prep staff, which means one of us has to prep the tea and there is never management at weekends. So, we can't always meet their immediate needs.”

Staff stated that they were not provided with regular breaks, and this affected their wellbeing. Staff who raised concerns about senior staff were told by management they could not have breaks during their shift. Care assistants were entitled to a 30-minute break but due to the workload on each shift were regularly not receiving their break. Staff felt there wellbeing at work was not considered. Staff felt they were unable to talk openly and honestly and this affected their mental health. One staff member said, “We [staff] are all on edge and all of us dread coming into work.”

The provider failed to have effective processes and systems in place to ensure staff had their entitled breaks. Staff files did not all contain a health screening check. This meant leaders were not necessarily aware of staff health and well-being needs, or able to support them with reasonable adjustments. Staff did not receive regular supervision which would provide an opportunity for discussion between staff and management regarding their well-being and any support they may require in the workplace. Staff surveys had been completed in January and May 2023; however, the information had not been reviewed or analysed to action the concerns staff had raised.