Eastfield

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

People’s care was not delivered or designed in a way that was person centred and person specific. Staff did not always provide support for people in relation to their protected characteristics. There was a lack of personalisation to some people’s rooms, and the service was not dementia friendly. We found one breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 care plans did not fully reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. For example, one person could become distressed however, there was no robust guidance for staff to refer to, to inform them how best to reduce the person’s distress. While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. For example, the dining room was busy and chaotic with loud music playing. A staff member told us, “It’s always busy in here,” a relative said, “I’ve already asked them to turn the music down”. Some people’s bedrooms were bare, in poor condition and without any personalisation. People’s bedrooms were without any adaptations, or consideration if this could be beneficial for example, for people with vision impairments.

People did not always receive person centred care. For example, one staff member told us, “Sometimes [name] can get tearful as they’re blind they will say ‘ I don’t know what day it is, I don’t know what time it is’ I tell them what it is, they get confused, thinks it’s still morning if night.” However, staff had not taken any proactive steps to support the person to minimize their distress and the confusion the person felt. One person had a digital photograph frame and an electronic tablet in their room; however, these were not plugged in or with charge. Staff told us these devices were in place to support the person to be less confused, however staff were unable to find any charging cables, or tell us when the person was last supported to use them.

The service was not dementia friendly. There was limited dementia friendly signage, and some of the wording was very small. One bathroom had a contrasting toilet seat for example for people living with dementia to distinguish the seat, but this was not consistent throughout the service. The toilet on the first floor had no signs to identify it as a bathroom for someone who could become confused or disorientated. Bedding within people’s room was not chosen with thought, and did not match. Staff did not always ask people, or follow people’s preferences, for example one gentleman’s bedding was floral pink. Staff told us this was not the person’s choice and had been done without thought.

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.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. People living at Eastfield were not treated as individuals. People with protected characteristics were not supported to seek ways to remove barriers to improve people’s experience.

People living in the home did not have access to equal opportunities, as staff and the registered manager lacked understanding of needs of people living with dementia.

Processes to ensure that people with protected characteristics were able to access and experience positive outcomes were not always effective. The registered manager did not ensure that people’s wellbeing and care was being reviewed and delivered to ensure that everyone had equal opportunities.

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.