You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

This inspection took place on 22 and 23 February 2018. Day one of the inspection was unannounced, and day two was announced.

Eversleigh Care Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This service provides nursing and personal care for up to 84 people. At the time of this inspection, there were 59 people living at the home.

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. The registered manager was present throughout this inspection.

At the time of our last inspection undertaken on in May 2017, we rated the service as Requires Improvement and found the provider was in breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because there were not enough staff deployed to safely meet people's needs. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. The service is now rated Good.

Staff had time to attend to people's physical and emotional needs. People did not have to wait for help from staff when this was needed. The provider followed safe recruitment processes.

The risks associated with people's individual care and support needs had been assessed and were reviewed as people's needs changed. People received their medicines safely and these were stored in accordance with the prescriber's directions.

People were protected from the risk of infection, and there was an understanding by staff of the importance of infection control and prevention. Where there were concerns about people being at risk of harm or abuse, action was taken to safeguard the individuals concerned.

Staff received ongoing support, training and guidance in their roles. The provider kept staff's training needs under review and arranged additional training in line with the health and emotional needs of people living at the home.

People's rights were upheld in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals, as required.

People enjoyed a variety and choice of foods. People were encouraged to eat and drink, and there were initiatives within the home to raise the awareness of hydration and nutrition, as well as the importance of people's dining experience.

People were supported to express themselves and communicate through a range of different methods. People had individual communication support plans in place, which were followed by staff.

People enjoyed respectful and positive interactions with staff. People were involved in decisions about how they wanted to be cared for. People's independence was promoted, whilst maintaining their safety.

People's changing health and wellbeing needs were responded to. People enjoyed their individual hobbies and interests, as well as having the opportunity to experience new social and leisure opportunities.

There was system in place for responding to and acting on complaints, comments, feedback and suggestions.

The atmosphere and culture of the home was upbeat and relaxed, which helped people to feel calm and happy. Staff, the registered manager and the provider were all striving to achieve the highest possible CQC rating and to provide the best possible service to people living at the home. The registered manager and the service had won local and national awards in recognition of what they had achieved.

The provider had quality assurance measures in place to routinely monitor the quality and safety of care provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to safely meet people's physical and emotional needs. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures.

People were protected from the risk of infection. People received their medicines safely and in accordance with the prescriber's instructions.

Staff and the provider understood their roles and responsibilities in regard to protecting people from abuse or harm.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received ongoing training and guidance in their roles to enable them to meet people's needs.

People were encouraged to eat and drink enough and to maintain a healthy weight. Consideration was given to the importance of the overall dining experience for people.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals, as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was caring.

People enjoyed respectful and positive relationships with the staff. People were involved in decisions about how they were cared for.

People's individual communication needs and styles were known by staff, and people were supported and encouraged to communicate through a range of different methods. People's independence was encouraged as much as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People were encouraged to maintain their individual hobbies and interests, as well as to experience new social and leisure opportunities.

People's changing health and wellbeing needs were responded to. There was a dignified approach to end-of-life care.

There was a system in place for capturing, responding to, and acting on complaints, comments, suggestions and feedback.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 March 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager shared their knowledge, skills and current best practice with the staff team. The registered manager and provider worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people received a high standard of quality of care.

Staff were motivated in their roles and felt committed to further improvements and developments at the home. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of care provided and to rectify any shortfalls.