The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Edward House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Albion Row, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB3 0BH (01223) 364405

Provided and run by:
Foundation of Edward Storey

All Inspections

9 December 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Edward House is a residential care home providing personal care to 15 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 18 people. All bedrooms have an en-suite washroom with a wash basin and toilet. The service had two communal bathrooms and an accessible wet room.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The registered manager had systems in place to manage risks and keep people safe from avoidable harm. Staff followed good practice guidelines to prevent the spread of infection and gave people their medicines safely.

Staff had received training, supervision, guidance and support so that they could do their job well. They worked well as a team. Staff enjoyed working at Edward House.

People liked the staff that cared for them. Staff were kind and caring and made sure people’s privacy was respected. People told us that they thought, “The care was special” and that they “Felt privileged,” to live at Edward House.

People were involved in making decisions about the care they wanted. Their preference for how staff delivered their care was recorded in their care plans. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service was well managed by a registered manager with regular input from the provider. The senior staff team were passionate about giving people a high-quality service.

Systems to monitor how well the service ran were carried out. Complaints and concerns had been followed up to make sure action was taken to rectify the issue. People, staff and professionals were asked their view of the service and action was taken to change any areas they were not happy with.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 01 July 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

31 May 2017

During a routine inspection

Edward House is a care home providing accommodation for up to 18 older people. The service is in a residential area close to the city centre of Cambridge. It is not registered to provide nursing care. 14 people were living at the service on the day of our inspection.

This inspection was undertaken by one inspector. At the last inspection on 21 April 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people using the service and to keep them safe. This included assisting people safely with their mobility and with their medicines.

There was sufficient numbers of staff on duty to safely assist and support people. The recruitment procedures and checks carried out ensured that only suitable staff were recruited to work with people using the service.

The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have choice and control over their lives as much as possible. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s needs were assessed, so that their care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. The management staff and care staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and knew their care needs well. People were provided with choices with how they spent their day, their choices of meals and drinks that were available. These choices were respected and actioned by staff.

Staff received regular training that gave them the right skills and knowledge to meet the needs of people living at the home. People were supported and assisted with their daily routines, hobbies and interests and accessing places of their choice in the community.

People received appropriate support to maintain a healthy diet and be able to choose and help prepare meals they preferred. People had access to a range of health care professionals, when they needed them.

Staff were clear about the values of the service in relation to providing people with compassionate care in a dignified and respectful manner. Staff knew what was expected of them and we observed staff supporting people in a respectful and dignified manner during our inspection.

The provider had processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People had been consulted about how they wished their care to be delivered and their choices had been respected. People, their relatives and staff were provided with the opportunity to give their feedback about the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

21 April 2015

During a routine inspection

Edward House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 18 people. There were 18 people living in the home when we visited. Accommodation is provided over two floors. All bedrooms are for single occupancy and have ensuite facilities. There are communal areas, including a lounge area, a dining room and an enclosed patio areafor people and their guests to use.

This unannounced inspection was carried out on 21 April 2015. The last inspection took place on 01 October 2013, during which we found the regulations we looked at were being met.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures to ensure that people were protected from harm. Staff were also aware of whistleblowing procedures and would have no hesitation in reporting any concerns. People received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff employed at the home. The provider’s recruitment process ensured that only staff who had been deemed suitable to work with people at the home were employed following satisfactory recruitment checks had been completed.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the registered manager and all staff were knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS would be required. The registered manager told us that there were no applications currently submitted to the relevant local authority’s but they aware of who to contact should they need to submit an application.

Staff respected and maintained people’s privacy at all times. People were provided with care and support as required and people did not have to wait for long periods of time before having their care needs met. This meant that people’s dignity was respected and that their care needs were met in a timely manner.

People’s assessed care and support needs were planned and met by staff who had a good understanding of how and when to provide people’s care whilst respecting their independence. Care records were detailed and up to date so that staff were provided with guidelines to care for people in the right way.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. These included appointments with their GP, hospital services and care from district nurses. Risk assessments were in place to ensure that people could be safely supported at all times.

People were provided with a varied menu and had a range of meals and healthy options to choose from. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks and snacks made available to people at all times.

People’s care was provided by staff in a caring, kind and compassionate way. People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and were supported by staff in a way which involved people to prevent them from becoming socially isolated.

The home had a complaints procedure available for people and their relatives to use and all staff were aware of the procedure. People were supported to raise concerns or complaints. Prompt action was taken to address people’s concerns and prevent any potential for recurrence.

There was an open culture within the home and people were able to talk and raise any issues with the staff. People were provided with several ways that they could comment on the quality of their care. This included regular contact with the provider, registered manager, staff and completing annual quality assurance surveys. The provider sought the views of healthcare professionals as a way of identifying improvement. Where people suggested improvements, these had been implemented promptly and to the person’s satisfaction.

1 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

As the purpose of this inspection was to assess improvements made in relation to shortfalls identified during our previous visit of 19 July 2013, we did not request information directly from people using the service on this occasion.

Overall, we found that the provider had taken adequate action to improve standards of cleanliness around the home so that people lived in a clean and hygienic environment.

19 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke told us they liked living at Edward House, that staff treated them well, that the food was good and that activities were frequent and varied. One person reported, 'The girls are marvellous and very caring'. Another person told us, 'They are very remarkable in the trouble they take to keep us culturally stimulated and entertained. Next week we're going to the Fitzwilliam Museum for a lecture on Egypt followed by an Egyptian lunch'.

We received positive feedback about the home from health professionals who visited it regularly. One community diabetes nurse told us, 'I've taught some of the staff to take glucometer readings and they do this really well. I always find them helpful and friendly'. Two district nurses told us they would recommend the home and felt the quality of care people received was good. One GP told us, 'They know their residents well and they do care. They are always quick to call if they have concerns about anyone'.

Family members we spoke with told us they liked the small size of the home and the fact that many of the staff had been there a long time and knew people's needs well as a result. One relative told us, 'They look after mum's clothes so carefully and launder her Jaeger skirt wonderfully'.

Overall we found that people received good quality care; that their medication was handled safely and equipment was well maintained. However, levels of cleanliness in some areas of the home were poor and action was needed to improve this.

4 September 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us they liked living at Edward House, that the food was good and that there were enough staff available to meet their needs. One person told us, 'The staff always treat me respectfully, their whole attitude is to be helpful'. Relatives told us they felt involved in making decisions about their family member's care and that staff were good at keeping them informed of what was happening. One commented, 'I am absolutely thrilled that my mother is there, it's a fantastic home'. People also talked highly of the frequency and range of activities available. We received many positive comments about the staff at the home. One relative told us, 'The staff do everything well and the way they relate to residents is really good'. However, one relative stated that her mum's clothes sometimes went astray and a missing cardigan had not yet been found.

We spoke with two district nurses from different surgeries who knew the home well. Both spoke highly of it and the staff who worked there. They told us that they received appropriate referrals from staff who were quick to identify problems with people's health. Both nurses told us they would have no hesitation recommending the home for one of their relatives. All the evidence we received from people using the service, their relatives and visiting health care professionals clearly demonstrated that this was a home where people received good quality care.

6 March 2012

During a routine inspection

The people we spoke with said they were very happy living at Edward House. They said they were involved in their care and support and liked the staff in the home.

People said they liked the home being small and knew all the staff. They said they could talk to any of the staff if they had any concerns, but added that they did not have any concerns.