Eastfield

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

Although we received positive feedback from people, we found that care and support was not always delivered to people in a person centred and dignified way. The way staff described people, and supported them was not always dignified and respectful. People were not supported in an individual way according to their needs and preferences. We found 2 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care and dignity and respect.

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 were not always treated with compassion and dignity. On the first day of our assessment, a person fell and needed support. A visitor came to the service, and was shown into the living area, past the person who was still on the floor, without any consideration of their dignity, and without a privacy screen in place. Staff could have taken the visitor via another route to the living area, to uphold the person’s dignity. Whilst the person was on the floor awaiting medical attention, another person passed them, and narrowly missed hitting the persons head with their Zimmer frame.

Although we did observe some kind interactions between staff and people, the way staff spoke about people was not dignified, or kind. One staff member referred to people with continence needs as ‘wetters’.

During the assessment, a person was walking through the lounge, it was clear they needed support with their continence care. Whilst staff did get a dignity screen, they did not use it effectively and did not direct other people away from the area, to protect the person’s dignity. One person was sitting with full view of the incident, and another person stood to the side of the dignity screen and watched, which did not uphold the person’s dignity. People were not always treated with dignity. When staff identified concerns with one person’s skin integrity, they took photographs to document the concerns. However, staff made no attempt to protect the person’s dignity, and only capture the area of concern, or cover intimate areas before photographing the person. There was a lack of consideration of people’s dignity.

People were not always treated as individuals. Staff told us one person did not use their room often and liked to sleep in the lounge. There was no information within their care plan to inform staff how best to support this person. Staff and the registered manager had not considered if the person needed to be assessed for a specialised chair to support them if they chose to sleep in the lounge. One person had a vision impairment; staff had not made any amendments to their room or to the service to support them accessing the service independently.

Some staff we spoke with were able to describe how to support people to be individuals, for example one staff member told us, “Some people have a learning disability, have problems with learning things. You help people by step-by-step order to do things.” However, some staff did not always support people with dementia in a positive way. For example, one person was anxiously calling the name of another person repeatedly. Staff did not stop and engage with the person or offer them any reassurance.

Systems to ensure that people were treated as individuals were not always effective. The registered manager had not consistently reviewed care plans to ensure they were person centred. For example, one person’s care plan stated ‘If [name] refuses assistance or becomes aggressive staff to try different carer, different time, different approach. Complete ABC charts to identify methods that work well. Administer medication as prescribed’ Guidance to support the person, regarding the prescribed medicine was not clear or person specific. Some people had personalised rooms, however other rooms were bare and without any personalisation.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.