We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ealing House Residential Care Home 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 Ealing House Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
The service had been creative in ensuring people’s social needs and mental well-being were fully considered during the pandemic. This included people creating quiz games, reminiscence therapy, and themed fun days for people to take part in. The provider had ensured that the availability of staff to deliver additional one to one well-being support was over and above the usual staffing levels.
People living in the home and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19 at the intervals stipulated by government guidelines.
The service was booking visitors in at a time that suited people and was spaced out to reduce the risk of potential infection transmission with other visitors. Visitors were also provided with appropriate personal protective equipment. A dedicated area had been arranged for visitors so they did not access any other areas of the building or come into contact with other people.
The service had a dynamic COVID-19 risk assessment in place, which meant that the most up to date government guidance could be added in according to changes. This was reviewed weekly.
The service had been proactive in securing good stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE).
Staff employed at the service had received training on infection prevention and control, COVID-19, and the correct use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Ealing House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 17 people. At the time of inspection there were 17 people using the service. The majority of people using the service were older adults whose needs were associated with physical disability, dementia or long- term health conditions.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider's vision and values were person-centred to make sure people were at the heart of the service. Staff were extremely motivated and proud to work at the service. We found an open ethos with a clear vision and values which were put into practice by staff. They had been properly recruited and provided with the appropriate training to enable them to meet people's individual care and support needs.
A creative activities programme was in place. People and relatives told us that staff had gone the extra mile to find out about people's previous hobbies and interests to enable these to be continued at Ealing House.
The provider challenged the institutional image of what living in a residential home was like for people; they placed high importance on promoting people’s independence to integrate with the local community, be involved with village events, and for people to continue to live their lives and be involved in anything that was of interest to them.
The registered manager and provider actively engaged in research, which then benefitted people who used the service. The registered manager and senior staff had embraced opportunities to undertake new practices. This had led to a positive impact on people who used the service, and shared learning for other local residential homes.
People’s nutritional and hydration needs were closely monitored. The service placed high importance on ensuring people’s dietary needs were met. A dedicated member of staff had responsibility for overseeing that any risks were dealt with promptly and had taken part in a hydration study with a local university.
The service was caring. Everyone we spoke with, had praise for the provider, staff, and registered manager, and the standards of care provided.
People's equality and diversity was respected. A history was taken of people's past preferences and people were able to follow their religion or other needs to reflect their diversity.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
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 20 March 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Ealing House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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 who used the service, relatives, and care staff spoke very highly of the provider and management team. They were passionate and dedicated to providing a high quality service to people. The registered manager and provider were visible and led by example. They were readily available to staff and relatives, and encouraged feedback at every opportunity, continually reflecting on how to improve the service further. They placed high importance on the views and wishes of people using the service, using this to influence change and developments within the service. The provider's vision and values were understood and shared across the staff team, who were fully supportive of development plans.
People felt safe living at the service and staff supported them in a way that they preferred. There were enough staff available to meet people's needs. Staff were caring, kind, respectful and courteous. Staff members knew people well, what they liked and how they wanted to be treated.
Systems were in place which safeguarded people from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe and actions were taken when they were concerned about people’s safety.
Risks to people were identified and assessments drawn up so that staff knew how to care for people safely and minimise any risks.
Medicines were provided safely and when required. Staff carried out regular audits to ensure processes were reviewed and monitored for effectiveness.
People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
There were a range of activities available to people living in the service, which provided a relaxed approach to how people chose to spend their time.
A complaints procedure was in place. People's concerns and complaints were listened to and addressed in a timely manner.
There were processes to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided and to understand the experiences of people who lived at the service.
There was adequate servicing and maintenance checks to equipment and systems in the home to ensure people's safety.
We considered our inspection findings to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary, please read the full report.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with four people who used the service. One person said to us, "I am very well looked after here." Another person said, "The staff are lovely; they're really jolly and make you laugh." We observed the care and attention people received from staff. All interactions we saw were appropriate, respectful and friendly and there was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the home.
Is the service responsive?
People were consulted about and involved in their own care planning and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Care plans and risk assessments were informative, up to date and regularly reviewed. Staff told us the manager was approachable and they would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns about the home.
Is the service safe?
The accommodation was adapted to meet the needs of the people living there, was suited to caring for people with limited mobility and was properly maintained. The home was warm, clean and was personalised to the people who lived there.
People were protected by effective staff recruitment systems and the provider ensured staff were supported and trained to care for people safely. There were proper process in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Is the service effective?
People we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support they received. No one raised any concerns with us. This was consistent with positive feedback from people reported in the provider's own annual quality assurance survey. All of the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about individual people's care needs and life histories, and this knowledge was consistent with the care records.
Is the service well led?
Staff said that they felt well supported by the manager, there was a good team ethic and they were able do their jobs safely. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff, that the service was continuously improving and that people were satisfied with the service they were receiving.
We looked at a variety of care records and saw that they were kept under review and up to date. Staff had responsibility for reviewing people's care needs each month and amending their care plans as appropriate. People were referred to health professionals as necessary and staff followed the instructions given to ensure people received the treatment they needed.
Processes were in place to make sure that people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received training about this and there were clear guidelines in place for staff to follow if they suspected that abuse may be occurring.
Records showed that the service followed robust procedures when recruiting staff. There was training in place to ensure that people were cared for by knowledgeable and qualified staff.
The service has quality monitoring procedures in place although they need to be formalised. The views of people, their relatives and health professionals were sought and people had access to a complaints procedure if they were dissatisfied with the service.