You are here

Eastfield Farm Residential Home Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 August 2018

This inspection took place on 18 July 2018 and was unannounced.

We completed our last inspection at this service in December 2017 to check improvements had been made to meet the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At that inspection we found the provider had acted and implemented sufficient improvements to their systems, processes and practice which meant they were no longer in breach of regulation.

During this inspection we checked and found evidence the provider had sustained the actions for improvement of the service from our last inspection.

Eastfield Farm Residential Home Limited 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.

The care home accommodates 26 people in one adapted building. At the time of this inspection 22 people were living at the home and receiving a service.

We were assisted during our inspection by a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure staff recognised signs of abuse and any concerns were appropriately investigated to help prevent similar events.

The provider had reviewed systems and processes in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

Risk assessments were in place for activities of care and support and the environment, to ensure the service remained safe for everybody.

The provider was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where the provider had concerns about people's capacity to consent to particular decisions, assessments were completed and decisions were made in the person’s best interest. Where people were unable to agree to restrictive practices to keep them safe the provider had submitted Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications to the local authority for further assessment.

The provider was in the process of implementing new technology to record the daily activities staff assisted people with. Staff had access to information reflective of people's individual needs. We found one instance where information was not up to date but this was remedied during our inspection.

People’s needs were assessed to ensure they received appropriate support to take their medicines safely as prescribed. Medicines were managed and administered according to national guidelines and best practice by staff who had been assessed as competent in this role.

The home was clean but despite regular deep cleaning of people's rooms on a rotating basis we found three people’s rooms had an unpleasant odour. Records confirmed the rooms were checked daily and the provider informed us new carpets were fitted the weekend following our inspection to remove the odours.

The laundry room was organised with new storage boxes for people's clothes.

The provider continued to use a tool which helped evaluate people's individual needs to identify the amount of staff required. This had resulted in increased staffing.

People were supported with their health and wellbeing. Drinks were provided throughout the day and a menu was provided with a choice of food for people. People received additional support from dietary and nutritional specialists where this was required.

People received information in a format they could understand. People's personal preferences and wishes were recorded and staff were aware of any diverse needs.

People continued to enjoy activities of their choosing and live fulfilled lives. Staff were available to support people with their individual interests and hobbies.

Appropriate checks were completed to ensure suitable staff were employed. Staff received training and support to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge to perform their role.

The provider had improved the support staff received with supervisions and these included focused discussions with staff to test their knowledge on their role and tasks they completed.

Relatives told us there were no restrictions on the times they could visit people living at the home and that they were always welcomed by staff on arrival.

There was a formal complaints system in place to manage any complaints received.

The provider completed audits and checks to maintain and improve the quality of the service received by people.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 August 2018

The service was safe.

People received support to take their medicines safely as prescribed.

Risks associated with people’s care and support were managed safely without unnecessary restrictions.

Staff had received training to keep people safe from abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were supported to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge to carry out their role.

Peoples were supported to understand and make informed decisions. Where they were assessed as not having capacity to do this, the provider followed processes under the Mental Capacity Act.

People were supported to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing. Any dietary needs were assessed and supported.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood the importance of this.

People were involved in any decisions about their care and support.

Staff understood how to communicate with people in a way they understood.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans included information to ensure staff provided care and support that was individualised.

People were supported to live meaningful lives and enjoy activities of their choosing.

People were supported to raise any concerns or complaints and systems were in place to record and learn from any outcomes.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 August 2018

The service was well-led.

Audits and checks were completed to maintain and improve the service.

The provider maintained good links with other health professionals to ensure best practice and support people with their individual needs.

The provider completed consultations and used feedback to help shape the service.