Edgemont View Nursing Home

Updated 13 January 2022

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about staffing, infection control and governance.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Edgemont View is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

This was a targeted inspection in response to specific concerns raised with us. We reviewed all information available to us.

During the inspection

We reviewed infection control procedures, spoke with the registered manager and four members of staff.

After the inspection

We spoke with four relatives. We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We reviewed relevant infection control policies.

Updated 13 January 2022

This inspection took place on 21 and 25 September 2017 and was unannounced. Edgemont View Nursing Home is registered to accommodate up to 21 people. At the time of our visit there were 19 people living at the service.

A newly appointed manager had been in post for four weeks at the time of our inspection. They had submitted an application to CQC to become the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection in August 2016 we rated the service overall as Requires Improvement. This was because we found breaches in Regulations 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We found people were not protected from the risks associated with cross infection, the service was not always well led and improvements were required. Provider visits needed to be more robust in order to support people who used the services. Auditing of the service and facilities was not effective or sufficient. In addition the service was not meeting a condition of their registration where there must be a manager registered with the CQC.

Following the inspection we told the provider to send us an action plan detailing how they would ensure they met the requirements of that regulation. At this inspection we saw the provider had taken action as identified in their action plan and improvements had been made. In addition they had sustained previous good practice. As a result of this inspection the service has an overall rating of Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

Even though the manager had only been in post for four weeks their appointment had already significantly helped improve the previous lack of management of the service. Their previous experience as a registered manager had equipped them with the skills and knowledge required for their roles and responsibilities. It was evident they were confident and committed to embrace the new challenges and to improve the service. An increase in the provider’s oversight meant that a significant number of improvements had been made to help ensure that people were safe and received quality care.

Improvements had been made to help ensure people were protected from the risk of cross infection. This was because appropriate guidance had been followed. People were now cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

The manager and staff followed procedures which reduced the risk of people being harmed. Staff understood what constituted abuse and what action they should take if they suspected this had occurred. Staff had considered actual and potential risks to people, plans were in place about how to manage, monitor and review these.

People were supported by the service’s recruitment policy and practices to help ensure that staff were suitable. The registered manager and staff were able to demonstrate there were sufficient numbers of staff with a combined skill mix on each shift.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. They felt supported by the provider and the manager at all times. The manager and nurses had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The care staff understood it’s principles and the importance of supporting people to make decisions and protect their rights.

People received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Changes in people’s needs were quickly identified and their care amended to meet their changing needs. The service was flexible and responded very positively to people’s requests. Staff demonstrated a genuine passion and commitment for the roles they performed and their individual responsibilities. It was important to them those living at the service felt ‘valued and happy’.

People benefitted from a service that was well led. People who used the service felt able to make requests and express their opinions and views. Staff were embracing new initiatives with the support of the manager and provider. They continued to look at the needs of people who used the service and ways to improve these so that people felt able to make positive changes.

The provider and manager had implemented a programme of improvement that was being well managed. The manager and provider demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of effective quality assurance systems. There were processes in place to monitor quality and understand the experiences of people who used the service.