You are here

Euroclydon Nursing Home Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Euroclydon Nursing Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23, 25, 26 June 2014
Date of Publication: 4 October 2014
Inspection Report published 04 October 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 23, 25, 26 June 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

Two adult social care inspectors carried out this inspection during the hours of one night and during one day. An expert by experience spoke with people about their experiences of the service. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because people's rights and dignity were upheld. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Two applications had been appropriately made. Proper policies and procedures were in place. Consideration of deprivation of liberty principles was reflected in people�s care plans. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

The service was safe because managers ensured learning took place following accidents and incidents. Arrangements for listening to people's concerns and complaints were in place, although, because of the way these were categorised, there was a risk that some may not be managed appropriately. We made the provider's representative aware of this during the inspection process. The service was safe because people's risks were assessed and managed. When people exhibited behaviour that could be perceived as challenging this was safely managed by the staff.

The service was not safe in relation to how some people were moved. Some poor moving and handling manoeuvres were observed and these were potentially harmful to people. We made the provider aware of this so that they could address this. A lack of cleanliness and robust infection control practices meant the home was not safe. People were not living in a clean environment and were not adequately protected from potential infection. We issued a compliance action in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to address this.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective because people told us they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. People were supported to partake in various activities and one person said, "I do all sorts of things I have never done before. I like doing painting and have some up on the wall". The service was effective because the staff knew the people they were looking after well. One visitor said, "This place is as good as I have seen. They deal extremely well with the person I am visiting". The service was effective as it enabled people to have trips out and visit the local community.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring because staff interacted with people in a kind and helpful way. Staff responded to people who were exhibiting behaviour that could be perceived as challenging in a non-threatening and respectful manner. The service was caring because staff recognised people's diverse needs and abilities and supported and managed these without prejudice or judgement. All the people we spoke with spoke fondly about the staff. The service was caring because people�s preferences and choices had been identified, recorded and the care and support provided took these into account. One person said "very happy to be here" and another said, "I am very content here". The service was caring because staff worked sensitively with people and with those who were less able to verbally communicate.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive because it worked with other services and professionals to ensure people's needs were met. People had access to appropriate services and professionals when needed. The service was responsive because staff recognised people's altering needs and abilities and adjusted their support/care accordingly. Staff responded to needs that required additional support, for example, one to one care when someone's needs were particularly complex. The service had not been responsive to the altering moving and handling needs of two people and this was rectified during the inspection.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well led because arrangements were in place for staff to meet and discuss issues with the management. Meetings were used by managers to communicate to staff specific guidance or to discuss areas they wanted addressed. Staff had opportunities to raise concerns or make suggestions. There was evidence of a good working relationship between the representative of the provider and the registered manager of the service. The service was well led because there were arrangements in place to follow up action plans and longer-term improvement plans. The service was well led because audits/checks were carried out to ensure care was provided correctly and to a good standard.

The service was not well led in respect of the management of on-going maintenance issues which were having an impact on people's safety and other arrangements such as infection control. We issued a compliance action in relation to the poor maintenance we observed and the provider must tell us how they plan to address this. During the inspection the Health and Safety Executive took regulatory action to protect people.