You are here

Bethesda Eventide Homes - Ipswich Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 March 2019

Bethesda Eventide Homes -Ipswich provides care for up to 26 older people. At the time of this unannounced inspection of 25 January 2019 there were 23 people who used the service. Some people were living with dementia.

At our last inspection on 1 December 2017, we found five breaches of Regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 20018 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Improvements were needed with assessing and mitigating risks to people, safe management of people’s medicines, consent to care and treatment, how people’s dietary needs was managed, staff training and how the quality of the service was monitored by the provider. We rated the service overall requires improvement. The key questions safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led were rated requires improvement.

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.

Bethesda Eventide Homes-Ipswich 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. The service does not provide nursing care.

Bethesda Eventide Homes-Ipswich 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.

People were cared for in a caring way by staff who understood their care needs. People and relatives were complimentary about the care provided and the approach of the management team and staff. Staff had developed good relationships with people. Staff consistently respected 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 to 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 share their experiences. Their feedback was valued, acted on and used to improve the quality of the service.

There was visible leadership in the service. Improvements had been mad

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 March 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 6 March 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 dietary 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 6 March 2019

The service was caring.

People were supported by compassionate 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 6 March 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 6 March 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 was 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.