Eothen Residential Homes - Whitley Bay

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 the last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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 learning, improvement and innovation. Staff and leaders actively reflected on practice, shared learning from incidents and investigated concerns to improve safety and quality. They demonstrated a strong commitment to research and continuous improvement through partnerships with universities, participation in national research projects and adopting learning into practice. Staff felt able to raise concerns and contribute ideas, and feedback from people, relatives and staff was used to support service development. A staff member said, “Whenever I make suggestions for improving the service, my manager takes the time to listen. We openly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each idea, and where appropriate, we implement them or work together to find an even better solution.”

Staff worked effectively with healthcare and social care professionals to support safe care, treatment and transitions. People's needs were assessed before admission and information was shared appropriately with professionals to promote continuity of care. Staff worked closely with GPs, district nurses and specialist services, responding promptly to changes in people's health and wellbeing. People and relatives spoke positively about support during admissions and changes in health. A staff member said, “At pre-admission assessment any worries and needs are discussed, then reviewed and adapted at 72 hrs, 6 weeks, annual reviews or as needs change.”

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. People consistently told us they felt safe, and relatives expressed confidence in staff and leaders to respond appropriately to concerns. Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities, knew how to raise concerns and described a culture where poor practice would be challenged. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. Staff understood when DoLS authorisations would need to be sought, the impact of the recent Supreme Court judgement and what to do if there were conditions imposed.

People were not always fully involved in decisions about managing risks to their safety and wellbeing. The provider promoted people retaining their independence and had made the decision not to have any communal areas locked. People found this helpful but the risk assessments both for the service and the people did not highlight or adequately mitigate the risks of people falling down the stairs or leaving the home and not returning. Staff understood people's needs and risk assessments were generally in place; however, records did not always demonstrate how people were involved in making informed decisions about risks affecting them. Some risk assessments lacked sufficient detail about the actions required to mitigate risks, and reviews were not always completed or updated promptly following incidents such as falls. Where risks related to mobility, nutrition, environmental hazards and stair access were identified, records did not always provide assurance that risks had been consistently assessed and managed in partnership with people.

The management team had not always identified, assessed and mitigated environmental risks effectively. Whilst the home was clean, well maintained and undergoing significant refurbishment, which people and relatives generally welcomed. Risks associated with unrestricted stair access, window restrictors, external access points and emergency evacuation arrangements had not been fully addressed. Some people expressed concerns about security and safety at night, and risk assessments did not always demonstrate how these environmental risks were managed. A staff member said, “I always felt it was safe, but more recently, with refurbishment, not so much. As I don’t feel it’s been a safe place for people.” A person said, “I’m safe but that low wall next my patio doors, makes me feel anxious.” The registered manager responded promptly when concerns were identified and undertook to install an electronic keypad to the gate, which would deactivate in the event of a fire.

People were not always supported by staffing arrangements which would consistently ensure their needs could be safely met. Daytime staffing levels were planned around dependency needs and recruitment processes were safe. However, the provider did not ensure adequate staffing at night to ensure people were protected from avoidable harm. For example, some people required the support of two staff for moving and transfers, this meant frequently throughout the night there was no additional staff member to support other people should they require routine help or in an emergency. The provider suggested staffing levels were based on dependency assessments rather than occupancy, but the provider’s tool showed the expectation for staff cover was a 1:8 ratio when the levels of need matched those described, and there was no explanation for the deviation from this expectation. A staff member said, “I arrive 15 minutes early every day, and I never stop for an official break as I often feel as I don't have enough time to complete the work.”

Recruitment practices and training levels met the required standards. Staff and relatives were generally positive about the quality, skills and commitment of staff, and records showed staff were trained and supported in their roles. A staff member said, “The training provided is regular and comprehensive, including both face-to-face sessions and online learning through the training portal. Whenever I am unsure about something in my role, I feel comfortable seeking advice from my manager or other members of the management team, who are always approachable and supportive.”

People were protected from the risk of infection. The home was clean and hygienic despite ongoing refurbishment works, and risks relating to infection prevention and control were well managed. The provider had robust infection control systems which included audits, competency assessments, regular monitoring and staff training. Staff understood infection prevention practices and the provider had effective arrangements to minimise the spread of infection and respond to outbreaks.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicines management systems were well established and medicines were administered by trained and competent staff. Audits, stock checks and monitoring processes were in place to support safe medicines management, and people received regular medication reviews from relevant healthcare professionals. Staff worked effectively with GPs and pharmacy services to support good outcomes for people. A person said, “I get all my medication on time, in fact I get everything I need.”