You are here

Ebury Court Residential Home Limited Outstanding

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 September 2018

During a routine inspection

Ebury Court is a residential care home providing care for up to 39 older people, many of whom have dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people using the service.

At the last inspection in December 2015 the service was rated Outstanding. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Outstanding and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Ebury Court 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.

Ebury Court has a registered manager. 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.’

There were excellent training and development opportunities for staff that were often bespoke and tailored to staff’s individual learning needs. Staff could develop their learning at a journal club by bringing social care articles for discussion and reflection with other staff, people or residents. Staff had monthly supervision where reflection on development was emphasised.

People were extremely complimentary about the food stating it was “great” and we observed exquisite meal presentation for those with dietary requirements. Staff support of healthcare professionals was exemplary with said professionals highlighting the service was better than others in the local area.

People’s care plans were personalised and these were used to provide tailored individual activities. There were excellent activities that engaged, included and involved people, particularly those with dementia. The provider had created bespoke care programs that they were able to evidence benefitted people in multiple ways. The service provided excellent end of life care that was viewed by professional bodies as gold and/or platinum standard. The service was visited by healthcare professionals, nationally and internationally, due to the recognition of high standards of care provided by trade bodies and academic institutions.

People, relatives and staff all thought the service was extremely well led and that the management team cared deeply about people. Staff felt the provider invested in them and were able to tell us how they felt the service had gone above and beyond the remit of just an employer. People and staff all participated in, and had involvement in the running of service through meetings and transparent relationships with management. People and staff told us they had a voice within the service and that they trusted the provider to listen. The provider had forged beneficial links with community partners, academic institutions and professional bodies that enhanced and enriched the lives of people completely remote from the service as well as those in their local community. The service had won numerous awards and accolades demonstrating their excellence in staff development, dementia and end of life care.

People told us they felt safe at Ebury Court. Staff understood how to safeguard people from harm and knew what to do if they suspected abuse. Staff knew how to administer and store medicines safely. There were robust infection control procedures in place. People and staff told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. The provider had safe recruitment practices that meant only suitable staff were employed.

People told us they were treated with kindness and compassion. People could express their views and had choic

Inspection carried out on 11 December 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 December 2015. The service met all legal requirements we checked at the last inspection in December 2013.

Ebury Court is registered to provide accommodation for 39 people who require personal care, some of whom have dementia. On the day of our visit there were 34 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 service was well led with strong values and a vision to involve people as much as possible and continually improve people’s experience. There were various initiatives such as Namaste (a sensory program aimed at stimulating people with advanced dementia) and cognitive stimulation therapy in order to improve the experience of people living with dementia. We found evidence that these initiatives had a positive impact on people and significantly improved their lives and wellbeing.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect at all times and there were a wide range of activities that met their needs. They told us staff were always pleasant polite and caring. The service had received awards for its work in ensuring that people received “Gold Standard” (a systematic evidence based approach to optimise care for people approaching end of life) accredited end of life care.

People told us they felt safe at Ebury Court. Staff understood how to safeguard people from harm, ensure medicines were handled safely and adhere to infection control procedures. Staff were aware of the procedures to follow in the event of a fire or a medical emergency.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. There were safe recruitment practices to ensure that only suitable staff were employed to work at the service. Staff were supported by a comprehensive training program, regular supervision and annual appraisals.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and how it applied in practice. Deprivation of liberty authorisations were sought where necessary and best interest’s decisions were sought when required.

Care plans reflected people’s individual preferences and clearly outlined peoples likes and dislikes, past and present interests. People told us they were involved in planning their care and how the service was run. People had been involved in choosing the wall paper in the dining room and some had been involved in the recruitment process. People and their relatives told us they were listened to and knew how to make a complaint.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Where nutritional support was needed referrals were made to the dietitian and other healthcare professionals.

Inspection carried out on 12 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people, four relatives, two members of staff, the manager and the director. We also spoke with a visiting activities provider.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and provided care and support in a friendly and kind manner. One relative said "they are so kind here, we are very happy." The activity provider said she saw "dignity in the home" with people wearing "jewellery and ties of their choice." We observed that staff had a good knowledge of the people they supported.

People were consulted about the care and treatment they received and this was delivered in line with the care plan.

We found the home to be very clean and tidy. People were protected from the risk of cross-contamination. Appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene were maintained.

People received their medicines in a safe and efficient manner. Staff followed procedures in the storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

The equipment was properly maintained and was suitable for its purpose. We saw that the equipment provided comfort and independence for people.

Staff were properly supported, trained and supervised to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff felt part of a team.

Regular audits were carried out to monitor the quality of service provision and action was taken to address any issues identified. Feedback was sought from all users, relatives and staff of the service to ensure a continuous improvement culture.

Inspection carried out on 7 August 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink that was provided. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs were met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Through the use of SOFI we were able to observe that people’s experience of the service was a positive one. Staff support was provided in a way that protected people’s dignity and met their nutritional needs.

People told us they were treated with respect and dignity. They said they enjoyed the food at the service, and it was served in sufficient quantities. People also told us they felt safe living at the home, and that the staff were good. Comments included, “Food here is excellent and I get plenty,” and “The manager is excellent she comes up to see me three times a day when I am not well.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)