Eccleston Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At the last inspection this key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant there were shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not always assure the delivery of high-quality care. The provider was in breach of legal regulation 17 Good governance of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

At this inspection we did observe improvements in governance from the last inspection, however, we identified continued breaches of regulation 17. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

This service scored 57 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on engagement with the staff team. Staff told us they did not feel valued by the provider and the senior leadership team who visited the service. They were not always approachable and did not always approach and engage with staff, however, staff did feel valued by the registered manager and deputy manager. The dementia training and development for staff was not available, this had not been identified considering the provider specialised in dementia care. Staff described how they felt overwhelmed at times with the number of new people admitted into the service and didn't have time to read care plans. Park Suite environment and the dining experience needed to be reviewed, the décor needed consideration, the dining experience was not extended to all people as it was a small area and crowded, there was not enough furniture in the dining area for people to join if they wished. However, staff we spoke with felt involved with what was going on in the service as the managers held regular meetings, and daily briefings.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. The provider specialised in dementia care, they did not have a provision in their training package for staff to equip them with appropriate training to support them to safely support people with dementia. The leadership in Eccleston Court seemed present and organised, this did not reflect the same as in Park Suite, we observed lack of leadership and management presence, staff deployment shortages and people in receipt of one-to-one support at Park Suite was not always receiving this.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Feedback from people, their families and staff were mainly positive about their experiences at Eccleston Court.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider did not always demonstrate good governance. Management had not ensured there was enough staff deployed at Park Suite which was necessary for them to carry out their role and responsibilities and to meet the needs of the people using the service, to also include one-to-one support. The auditing processes were not highlighting medication management issues we found; the environmental issues such as infection prevention and control and maintenance issues found in Park Suite. Missed care interactions were not always effectively managed, this meant care was planned to be undertaken was not recorded and completed on the recording system. There was a theme during the on-site assessment of people’s care described in summary sheets were not always mirroring the up-to-date information in the main care plans. There was a lack of activity and entertainment for people while activity staff were being recruited, redeployment of staff was not considered. However, feedback from people, family members, staff and partners were positive about the management of the service.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. This was supported with positive feedback from partners.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. The clinical training showed gaps where training was required for nursing staff, and specialist training such as dementia training was not considered. The environment in Park Suite was not effective in relation to the communal areas as there was not enough room for people to have a positive dining experience. There was a lack of activity and entertainment due to low staffing levels to promote quality of life for people to also include the lack of activity and stimulation for people at Eccleston Court, we observed long periods of time without staff engagement and interaction.