Esplanade House

Updated 10 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 22 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 10 March 2021

The inspection took place on 4 and 7 December 2018 and was unannounced.

Esplanade House 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.

Esplanade House provides accommodation for up to 13 people who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection, there were 13 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager 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.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Staff treated people with utmost kindness, respect and compassion. Staff had built exceptionally positive relationships with people and knew what mattered most to them.

Staff went the extra mile to ensure people were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. The service had built strong, open relationships with people’s families.

Staff were highly motivated and showed dedication to improve people's lives, by supporting them to lead their lives as they wished. The service was committed to promoting people's independence in all aspects of day to day life.

People felt safe living at Esplanade House. Staff knew how to keep people safe and how to identify, prevent and report abuse. They engaged appropriately with the local safeguarding authority.

Thorough staff recruitment checks were carried out when a new staff member started working for the service. There were enough staff available to keep people safe at all times.

Individual and environmental risks were managed effectively. Risk assessments identified risks to people and provided clear guidance to staff on how risks should be managed and mitigated.

There were robust systems in place to ensure the safe management of medicines. People were supported to receive their medicines by staff who had been trained appropriately and medicine administration records were completed accurately.

Staff received a variety of training and demonstrated knowledge, skill and competence to support people effectively. Staff were supported appropriately by the registered manager and deputy manager.

People had access to health and social care professionals where required and staff worked together co-operatively and efficiently.

Staff were knowledgeable of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people’s rights were protected in line with the Act at all times.

People were supported by staff with their nutritional and hydration needs. People were offered choice at mealtimes and menus contained a variety of nutritious and healthy foods. Where people had specific dietary requirements, this was well documented and staff were aware of how to meet these needs.

People received personalised support in line with their wishes and preferences. Staff ensured that people received consistent care.

People’s communication preferences were explored and documented to ensure that staff were able to meet people’s needs. The service had used forms of technology to develop positive communication styles with people.

People had access to a wide range of activities within the service and in the local community. People were supported to follow their own interests and participate in regularly social occasions.

Care plans contained personalised and clear information about people’s needs, wishes and preferences around their care and support. Care plans were reviewed regularly and where relevant, people’s families were invited to express their views.

The service had a clear process in place to deal with complaints and we saw that concerns were dealt with in a timely and effective manner.

People, their relatives, visitors and staff members commented positively on the leadership of the service and felt that the service was well-led. The provider was engaged with the running of the service and was approachable to people and staff.

There were appropriate auditing systems in place, which ensured that issues were acted upon and ideas for improvement were responded too.