Edward House

There were enough trained and experienced staff to meet people’s support needs. Leaders were visible in the home and operated an open-door policy so people could speak to them. However, people did not always feel the management team were approachable or able to speak up and give feedback.

People and those important to them were not always involved in assessments of their needs or reviews of their care needs. Assessments did take account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy but we noted some people requiring additional assistance were not always effectively supported with this. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes but had not consistently monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act, used least restrictive practices, sought consent and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. The provider had failed to support staff wellbeing effectively and consistently.

Staff did not always feel supported to give feedback, that they were treated equally or were free from bullying or harassment. Leaders and staff did not have a shared vision and culture and the inspection team explored through discussion closed culture with the registered manager. Any service that delivers care can have a closed culture. We define this as ‘a poor culture that can lead to harm.’ Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers were receptive to new ideas and wanted to improve standards of care, the environment and support of staff at the home.