You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 February 2016

This inspection took place on 9 November 2015 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection at the home.

Eglington provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with mental health needs. On the day of the inspection there were 5 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 they felt safe and staff treated them well. People were involved in their care planning where possible. Medicines had been managed appropriately. Equipment had been serviced on a regular basis to ensure that it remained suitable for use. Care plans were reflective of people’s individual care and preferences. People’s cultural needs and religious beliefs were recorded to ensure that staff took account of people’s needs and wishes.

Care plans and risk assessments provided clear information and guidance for staff on how to support people using the service with their needs. Care plans were reflective of people’s individual care and preferences. People’s cultural needs and religious beliefs were recorded to ensure that staff took account of people’s needs and wishes. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals when required. People were supported to have a healthy and balanced diet.

The manager and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible. For example to brush their hair or put their laundry away.

Staff had undertaken mandatory training which included safeguarding, mental capacity, health and safety and medicines administration.

Safeguarding adult’s procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work and there were enough staff on duty and deployed throughout the home to meet people’s care and support needs.

Staff treated people with empathy and compassion; while respecting their privacy and dignity. Each person had key worker assigned to them to give individual and focused support. Staff knew people well and remembered things that were important to them so that they received person-centred care.

People told us that both the registered manager and the provider were always available and could approach them at any time. Systems were place to monitor and evaluate the quality and safety of the service. However, these were not always used effectively to ensure staff had received up to date refresher training.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 February 2016

The service was safe

People felt safe and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

Assessments had been made to minimise personal and environmental risks to

people.

Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work.

T

here were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 February 2016

The service was effective

Staff had undertaken mandatory training.

The manager and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and acted according to this legislation.

People enjoyed nutritious and varied meals and were supported to eat them.

People had access to healthcare when they needed it.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 February 2016

The service was caring

Staff delivered care and support with compassion and consideration.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was protected.

Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 February 2016

The service was responsive

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s support needs and their preferences in order to provide a personalised service.

There were a variety of activities on offer that met people’s need for stimulation.

People knew how to make complaints and were confident that their complaints would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 February 2016

The service was well-led

The provider was not monitoring all refresher training for staff.

There were arrangements in place for monitoring the quality of the service that people received.

Staff said there was a good atmosphere and open culture in the service and that both the registered manager and the provider were supportive.

The provider took into account the views of people using the service, relatives, healthcare professionals and staff.