We carried out a review of the data available to us about Edward House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Edward House, you can give feedback on this service.
People were safe and continued to receive safe care. The risks to people’s safety were regularly reviewed and processes were in place to protect people from avoidable harm. Sufficient numbers of staff were in place to keep people safe and safe recruitment procedures ensured people were protected from the risks of unsuitable staff. People’s medicines were managed safely; although a small number of protocols relating to ‘as needed’ medicines were required.
Staff were well trained, felt supported and were able to carry out their role effectively. Where people were able to make their own decisions about their care and support needs, their wishes were respected by staff. Where people were unable, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were always followed. People were encouraged to eat and drink healthily. People’s day to day health needs were monitored and referrals to external professionals were made where needed and in a timely manner. External professionals felt staff responded to their guidance when provided.
People were supported by staff who were very kind and caring and treated them with respect and dignity. People were encouraged to lead independent lives and care and support was tailored to enable people to do so. People had an excellent relationship with the staff. All people were treated equally with a strong emphasis on supporting people’s diverse needs, including their religion. People were supported to lead their lives in the way they wanted with their views and opinions being respected. People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to speak with an independent advocate, to support them with decisions about their care. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to and where relatives were unable to visit, alternative methods were used to support family contact.
People were supported to carry out the activities that interested them. Care plans were person centred and focused on what was important to each person. People felt able to make a complaint and that it would be acted.
The service was well-led. People, relatives, staff and professionals commented positively about the registered manager. There was a calm, open and friendly atmosphere at the home which resulted in a high quality of service for people. Effective auditing processes were in place, with regular input from representatives of the provider.
We inspected the service on 11 June 2015. The inspection was unannounced. Edward House provides care and support for up to 34 older adults, including people living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 28 people were using the service.
The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 were protected by systems designed to keep them safe from harm and people felt safe. Medicines were managed safely and there were enough skilled and qualified staff to provide care and support to people.
People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and training to provide safe and appropriate care and support.
People were supported to make decisions and where people lacked the capacity to make certain decisions there were systems in place to protect them under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People did not have unnecessary restrictions placed upon them.
People were supported to maintain their nutrition and other health needs and referrals were made to health care professionals for additional support or guidance if people’s health changed.
People were treated with dignity and respect and had their choices acted on. We saw staff were kind and compassionate when supporting people.
People were involved in planning their care and knew who to speak with if they had any concerns.
People were involved in giving their views on how the service was run through the systems used to monitor the quality of the service. Audits had been completed that resulted in improvements to the service.
Medication was stored safely and audits were taking place to identify issues with administration. Staff were trained in how to administer medication and two people we spoke with told us they received their medication from staff when they were supposed to.
Staff were being given training to assist them to support people safely. People we spoke with gave positive feedback in relation to the staff. One person told us, 'I am very happy, the staff are lovely.'
People we spoke with told us they would feel comfortable raising issues with the manager or staff and felt confident that any complaint would be dealt with by the manager. One person told us, 'You only have to tell them and it is sorted out.'
We looked at the care plans and records of four people who used the service. We found people's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual plan.
Staff were aware of the appropriate reporting processes should an allegation of abuse be raised, ensuring people were protected at all times. People using the service could be confident that staff had been screened as to their suitability to work with vulnerable adults.
The provider had an effective quality assurance system.