Edendale Lodge

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 worked effectively alongside health professionals to provide the best outcomes for people. Health professionals told us how well staff worked with them, and that they were knowledgeable and professional. The provider used known tools to monitor and evidence improvement and outcomes. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible, and were asked for their approval and agreement when being offered support. Improvements are needed to records and documentation used when people are moving into the service or transferring to a different service such as a hospital for treatment.

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.

Only one person who lived at the service was able to share their views. They told us, “I’m fully involved in my care, they discuss what is happening and contact my doctor if I’m unwell. I like it here – I feel they look after me.” Relatives told us that assessments of care needs and reviews were thorough and they were included in the process and asked for their views if appropriate. Relatives said they were contacted when needs changed and communicated any issues promptly.

Staff told us that they read and follow the information in care plans and risk assessments and continually monitor people’s health and care needs. One said, “If someone is poorly, or a bit off, we do observations like checking temperature and call the doctor’s surgery if needed. We use observation mostly, because our residents can’t tell us."

People’s needs were assessed before their care and support started, and it included details of the practical assistance each person needed prior to moving in to the service. However, not all pre-admission documents contained enough detail which had led to concerns being raised. The registered manager had implemented improvements in response to this and was able to show us the new improved documentation being used. National guidelines and assessment tools were being followed and health professionals were involved in providing specialist advice to support good outcomes for people.

Relatives told us that checks do take place and that where staff have concerns, these are taken forward and routine monitoring put in place to track improvements or concerns. One relative said, “They monitor my relative, I know they weigh them and check their skin. I trust them – they keep on top of things. I don’t worry about leaving them.”

Staff told us that they are given training which follows current good practice guidance, and that they get updates and refresher training. One staff said, “We get training refreshers and supervisions. We also have competency assessments.”

We saw evidence of multi-disciplinary team meetings to discuss people’s needs and wishes and ensure sharing of good practice. The provider had introduced a computerised care record system for all their care services that used recognised assessments to assess people's support needs. Recognised assessment and monitoring tools were used appropriately to track improvements or concerns, and the manager had oversight of these and planned action appropriately. The service had links with other organisations to access services, such as tissue viability services and speech and language therapists (SaLT).

People told us that staff work alongside other services to arrange good care and support. One person said, “I get really good care and I see dentists, chiropodist and go to hospital appointments.”

Staff told us enthusiastically how well they feel they work as a team. One said, “It’s a good team – with good staff.” Staff told us that new staff are buddied up with an experienced staff member who knew people well, which helps them to settle in well and feel confident. Another staff member said that they feel listened to by the management team, they said, “We have monthly staff meetings and we can come up with ideas and suggestions. We just throw ideas at her [the registered manager].”

Health professionals told us that working relationships were very positive with the service and that staff were very knowledgeable about the people they support. One said that staff provide them with the information or answers that they need in a timely way.

All relevant staff, teams and services were involved in assessing, planning and delivering people's care and treatment. Staff worked collaboratively to understand and meet people's needs. When they needed advice they sought it from the appropriate health professional and listened to their advice. The Information to ensure peoples safety and well-being was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care, for example when tasks were delegated or when people are referred between services.

Relatives told us that their loved ones are supported to live healthier lives. One relative said that staff try different ways to encourage their relative to eat well. They said about their relative, “She has spells where she won’t eat, and staff have to support her. They do it with her – they try to put the food in her hand – they are patient and kind. Sometimes that works.”

Staff described to us the ways in which they support people. One said, “We try to encourage them with activities which they enjoy.” One staff told us, “We respect that everyone is different and we plan care to focus on their strengths -like encouraging them to be active.”

Care documents showed there was evidence of regular reviews and input from the GP, Optician, Dentist and and Chiropodist. Equality and diversity were embedded in the principles of the service and the provider had an equality and diversity policy in place to protect people and staff against discrimination.

Comments from relatives were positive, and included, “They let us know when [relative] is having a bad day.” Another told us, “[Relative] has improved so much since they moved here. They have had their medication reviewed and changed, and their mobility has improved. They understand what food he likes and he has dramatically improved.”

Staff told us they carry out care reviews monthly, and discuss changes in care frequently. One said, “We talk everyday about people – our residents can change daily – we discuss that at shift change. We continuously monitor to make sure we are meeting their needs.”

The staff team worked closely with the GP, dieticians and speech and language therapists (SaLT). Care plans and assessment tools were in line with guidance from the national institute for health and care excellence (NICE). The provider carried out assessments and reviews to ensure they were regularly monitored for changes in their level of need. There were organisational systems in place to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes. Audits were used to identify issues and themes and to learn lessons to provide positive outcomes for people.

Relatives told us, “Staff always let them [relative] know what they are going to do.” And “They [staff] are always very polite and ask my relative for permission before they do anything. They are very respectful.”

Staff said that they have received training on the Mental Capacity Act. One staff said, “We always ask them first, because sometimes they are more able to choose than others. We try to pick up on body language – if they are unable to communicate.”

Staff received training in the principles of the MCA and understood their role and responsibility in upholding those principles. People were asked for their consent and were involved in day to day choices and decisions. Staff interaction with people demonstrated that people's choice and involvement was important to how care was provided. We saw people making choices about where they sat, what they ate and what activities they wished to do. Each risk assessment and care plan was accompanied by an MCA assessment and contained details of how decisions for each task was made. However there were discrepancies in the documentation and some people’s assessments were not decision specific and did not reflect peoples fluctuating capacity.