You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 February 2019

Eastview Residential Home provides care for up to 14 older people. Some people using the service were living with dementia. At the time of this unannounced inspection of 18 December 2018, there were 13 people who used the service. This service was registered on 2 December 2010.

At our last inspection on 29 December 2017, we found five breaches of Regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 20018 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Improvements were needed with consent to care and treatment, how risks to people were monitored and managed, how people’s nutrition was managed and how the quality of the service was monitored by the provider. Improvements were also required to ensure safe recruitment procedures were followed and people’s care records were detailed and reflected how to meet their needs. We rated the service overall requires improvement. The key questions safe, effective, responsive and well-led were rated requires improvement. The key question caring was rated good.

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and were ongoing. The provider was no longer in breach of any regulations. We were encouraged by the progress made by the management team to turn the service around and the overall rating has changed from requires improvement to good.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Eastview Residential Home 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.

Eastview Residential Home provided a safe service to people. This included systems in place intended to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse, falls and with their medicines. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. They were trained and supported to meet people’s needs. Staff were available when people needed assistance and had been recruited safely. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely, following best practice guidelines.

People were cared for in a compassionate way by staff who understood their care needs. People were complimentary about the care they received and the approach of the management team and staff. Staff had developed good relationships with people. Staff consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

People and their relatives where appropriate were involved in the planning of their care and people’s care records reflected their personal preferences. The care records were reviewed regularly and updated when people’s care needs changed.

People enjoyed a positive meal time experience and were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services. Input from other professionals was sought where concerns were identified about a person’s health or wellbeing needs. Information about people’s healthcare needs was shared appropriately with other professionals to ensure continuity of care.

The registered manager and the staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were supported to pursue their hobbies and participate in activities that they chose. People knew how to complain and s

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 February 2019

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse and harm.

Risks were identified and reviewed in a timely manner.

There were sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely to meet people’s needs.

People received their medicines in a safe and timely manner.

Staff had received training in infection control and food hygiene and understood their responsibilities relating to these areas.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 February 2019

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to meet people’s needs effectively.

The service was up to date with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were met and professional advice and support was obtained for people when needed.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services, which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 February 2019

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring staff who were attentive to their needs.

People and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and these choices were respected.

Staff promoted people’s independence and cared for them in a way that maintained their dignity and privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 February 2019

The service was responsive.

People’s care records were person centred, regularly reviewed and amended to meet changing needs.

People were encouraged and supported to pursue their hobbies and to participate in activities of their choice.

People’s concerns were responded to appropriately and in a timely way.

People’s preferences about their end of life care were documented.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 February 2019

The service was well-led.

Improvements had been made and were ongoing to the systems and procedures to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

The registered manager and provider were approachable and had a visible presence in the service.

Staff were encouraged to professionally develop and understood their roles and responsibilities.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies.