Eden Grange

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Managers and staff described how incidents, concerns and complaints were recorded, reviewed and used to support learning and improvement. Accidents and incidents were analysed to identify themes and actions were taken to reduce the risk of similar events reoccurring. Staff said they felt able to raise concerns and these were routinely discussed during regular handovers and meetings.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

There were arrangements in place to assess people’s individual needs, wishes and risks to their safety, before admission and to coordinate care with community-based health and social care professionals. These systems supported continuity of care and helped timely discharge from hospital.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were protected from abuse and improper treatment, and staff understood their safeguarding roles and responsibilities. People and relatives said they felt safe and that the care home was a safe environment for people to live in. One person told us, “I do feel safe living here. There’s always staff around to look after us.”

Managers and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and were able to articulate how they would spot signs if people were at risk of abuse or harm. A staff member told us, “I would not hesitate to report any safeguarding issues that came to my attention to any of the managers or the senior staff in-charge of the floor on any given day.” Managers worked proactively with the relevant agencies, when a concern was raised, and took appropriate action to safeguard people from further risk.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed Dols within the service. We found that people were only deprived of their liberty when there were legal authorisations in place to do so to keep people safe.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Managers and staff had a clear understanding of the potential risks people might encounter and the actions required to prevent or safely manage them. There were robust systems in place to routinely assess, monitor and review risks to people. Care records contained up-to-date and detailed information about potential risks to people’s safety and guidance on how these should be prevented or managed. Risk assessment and management plans were reviewed regularly and updated promptly to reflect any changes in people’s needs.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The care homes interior was decorated and furnished to a high standard. The environment on the second floor which was the designated area where people living with dementia stayed was ‘dementia friendly.’ For example, there were easy to understand pictorial signage that identified the function of various rooms, such as toilets, bathrooms and the dining area and a hatrack people could use. The managers told us they were in the process of liaising with a dementia care specialist to seek their expert advice and guidance about making the interior of this floor even more ‘dementia friendly’.

The premises were kept free of obstacles and hazards which enabled people to move safely around the care home. There were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises. Staff told us they had clear guidelines available to help them deal with emergencies. In relation to fire safety, we saw personalised plans were in place to help staff evacuate people in the event of an emergency. Regular checks were completed to help ensure the safety of the home’s physical environment and fire safety equipment. General risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated including reference to equipment used to support people. This equipment was regularly serviced and maintained. For example, visual checks were regularly completed on bed rails, window restrictors and other equipment.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff had not received Oliver McGowan training, contrary to recognised best practice. It is mandatory for all staff working in an adult social care settings to complete this training which helps staff acquire the knowledge and skills they need to effectively support people with a learning disability or autism. We discussed this issue with the managers at the time of the assessment who were aware of this gap in staffs training. They immediately provided us with recorded evidence to show us arrangements had already been put in place for all staff to complete their Oliver McGowan training by the end of 2026.

Staff continued to receive a mixture of e-learning and in-person practical and theoretical training. A staff member told us, “The training we have here is very good. There’s plenty of it and it always relevant to our role.” Another staff member added, “The managers make sure our training remains up to date. Only this morning I had to attend a practical course to refresh my moving and transferring skills, which involved hands on use of a mobile hoist.” Training was routinely refreshed as frequently as staff required it including, competency-based assessments. The training of new staff included a comprehensive induction programme.

Staffing levels matched the staff duty rota on the day of our site visit. Staff were visibly present throughout the care home and were quick to respond to people’s questions and requests for support. For example, we saw several instances of staff responding promptly to people who had activated their call bell alarm. People told us the care home was adequately staffed. One person said, “There is always lots of staff around who come as quickly as they can when you request their help.”

Staff had ongoing opportunities to reflect on their working practices and to identify any further training, learning or support they might need. Staff had regular individual and group meetings with their fellow peers and line managers. A member of staff told us, “I do feel supported by the managers here who are all very approachable.”

The provider operated safe recruitment practices and only fit and suitable staff were employed to work at the care home.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People lived in a clean, hygienic environment. People and their relatives told us the care home always looked and smelt clean and fresh. A relative said, “The home is always spotlessly clean whenever I visit my [family member].”Staff had received food hygiene and infection control training and had access to resources and equipment to help them reduce infection risks, which included adequate supplies of [PPE]. Kitchen staff wore appropriate uniforms including hair nets and hats to maintain hygiene standards. This requirement was also implemented for any visitors entering the kitchen, who were required to wear overalls and hats prior to entry. The provider’s infection prevention, control, and food hygiene policies and procedures were current and reflected national guidance.

The provider made sure medicines were safe, well-managed and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They always involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The service’s medicines systems were well-organised and safely managed. Medicines stocks, balances and records showed people consistently received their medicines as prescribed. Care records contained detailed guidance for staff about how people needed and preferred their prescribed medicines to be administered. Detailed risk assessments and protocols for the administration of prescribed medicines were in place to guide staff. Staff received medicines training and their competency to continue managing medicines safely was routinely assessed by their line managers. The provider had policies in place for the safe storage and administration of medications. Staff were able to explain how to correctly store controlled drugs in line with the providers policy. Medication stock checks, balances and records evidence that people consistently received their prescribed medication safely. Regular internal audits of medication practices were in place ensuring any areas would be identified and managed quickly.