We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ebenezer Residential Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Ebenezer Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The premises were clean and well maintained. Hand sanitiser and personal protective equipment (PPE) were available at the entrance of the home. Visitors were sent information prior to visiting the service about visiting the home safely. Visitors had their temperature taken and recorded, and people were supported to follow the government's guidance on wearing PPE and social distancing.
The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID-19. This ensured that people, visitors and staff were tested for COVID-19 in a consistent way in line with national guidance.
The provider ensured that staff received appropriate training and support to help prevent the spread of infection. All staff had received regular training on infection control and the use of PPE.
The provider ensured that people using the service could maintain links with family members and friends. Family members and friends could stay in touch with people with phone and video messaging. Family and friends could visit people at the service.
Ebenezer Residential Care Home is a care home registered to provide personal and nursing care for up to three people. At the time of the inspection three people were using the service.
Ebenezer Residential Care Home is located in a residential area and each person using the service had their own bedrooms but shared the lounge, kitchen and bathrooms.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe in the service. Each person had a risk assessment which identified possible risks to them and provided guidance for staff to manage the risks. Staff had good knowledge of safeguarding people from abuse. Staff recruitment was robust ensuring they were safe, experienced and skilled to support people. Staff received supervision and support to enhance their knowledge and quality of service they provided. Arrangements were in place to ensure there were sufficient number of staff to care for people.
Staff administered and recorded medicines. Medicines were monitored and kept safely. Incidents and accidents were recorded, reviewed and lessons learnt to ensure future incidents and accidents were avoided.
Staff had infection control training, and we observed all parts of the service was clean. Health and safety audits, and regular testing and maintenance of the facilities were undertaken. These ensured people lived in a safe environment.
People and relatives told us staff were caring and respectful knew what they were doing. Staff knew how to ensure people’s privacy and dignity at all times.
People told us they had meals that reflected their choices in terms of culture, religion or any other preferences.
Staff supported people to access healthcare. People enjoyed activities of their choice.
Care plans were person-centred, which meant that they reflected people’s needs, choices and how they wanted staff to support them. People were supported to have maximum choice and control in their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service had a policy on equality and diversity, and staff understood that discrimination of any kind based on differences such as disability, sex, sexuality, religion or age was not acceptable.
People's communication needs were assessed in their care files. There was a complaints policy in place and people and relatives were aware of how to make a complaint.
The registered manager sought feedback from people and staff. Staff attended conferences, workshops to ensure they continuously learnt and improved the quality of the service.
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection the service was rated Good (report published on 28 April 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We inspected Ebenezer Residential Care Home on 30 March 2017. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location is a small care home for adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
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 experiences of people who lived at the service were positive. People told us they felt the service was safe, staff were kind and the care they received was good. We found staff had a good understanding of their responsibility with regard to safeguarding adults.
Risk assessments were in place which provided guidance on how to support people safely. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed in a safe manner. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed by the service. Staff had been recruited safely with appropriate checks on their backgrounds completed.
Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA and DoLS is law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves or whom the state has decided their liberty needs to be deprived in their own best interests. We saw people were able to choose what they ate and drank.
Support plans were in place and people were involved in planning the care and support they received. However the support plans were not always person centred for people’s individual needs.
People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.
People had access to a wide variety of activities within the community. The provider had a complaint procedure in place. People knew how to make a complaint.
Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and open. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place. These included surveys, audits and staff and residents meetings.
We have made one recommendation about support plans being person centred for people.
We undertook this focused inspection on 22 September 2016 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Ebenezer Residential Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.
Ebenezer Residential Care Home is a care home providing accommodation and support with personal care for people with mental health conditions. The home is registered for three people. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care and support to three people.
There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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 Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager understood this legislation and had submitted DoLS applications for some people living at the home. Records showed that all staff had completed training on Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
The service had various quality assurance and monitoring systems in place. The registered manager told us and we saw records of regular quality checks. These quality checks included inspecting the premises, medicines and people’s finances. The registered manager completed regular audits of care records for people.
We will not change an overall rating if we carry out a focused inspection more than six months after the publication of the previous comprehensive inspection report. This is because we will not be able to make judgements about all aspects of the service at a reasonably similar time, which we must be able to do in order to award an overall rating.
We inspected Ebenezer Residential Care Home on 10 September 2015. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
Ebenezer Residential Care Home is a care home providing accommodation and support with personal care for people with mental health conditions. The home is registered for three people. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care and support to three people.
There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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.
We found that there were limited systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people at the service. The registered manager told us that there was no formal auditing process used which would cover areas such as care plans, staff training, medicines and people’s finances.
We found the provider had not sent us any statutory notifications for people authorised for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.
The service had appropriate systems in place for safeguarding people. Risk assessments were in place which provided guidance on how to support people safely. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed in a safe manner.
Staff were well supported and received training and one to one supervision. People were able to make choices about most aspects of their daily lives. People were provided with a choice of food and drink and supported to eat healthily. People had access to health care professionals and were supported to lead healthy lifestyles.
People and their relatives told us they liked the staff. We saw staff interacting with people in a caring way and staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s dignity.
Care plans were in place and people were involved in planning the care and support the received. People had access to a wide variety of activities within the community. The provider had appropriate complaints procedures in place.
There was a clear management structure in the home. People who lived at the home, relatives and staff felt comfortable about sharing their views and talking to the manager if they had any concerns. Staff told us the manager was always supportive.
People told us they were happy in the home and one relative said 'XXX is really happy here. Since he's been here he's much more stable.' People went shopping with staff and also attended a day centre four days a week. They were able to socialise with other people there and also undertook activities such as computing skills.
People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We saw that staff explained and discussed issues with people so that they understood what was happening.
People's food and drink met their religious or cultural needs. The menus we looked at were varied and reflected people's different cultural foods and preferences.
Medicines that were prescribed for or to be given to a specific person were administered appropriately. We looked at the Medicines Administration Records (MAR) charts and found that the staff member on duty had signed and dated the MAR chart to confirm that the medication had been taken.
Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work at the home. People's identity had been verified and criminal records checks carried out. There were checks on people's eligibility to work in the UK.
People told us that they were generally happy with the service and that they had privacy. They also said that they had "good dinners" and that there were choices in this respect. Representatives also told us that the staff seem very nice and that their relatives seemed to be "happy and settled" in the setting. We also looked at the records held on site which demonstrated that individual needs were being assessed and reviewed on an on going basis. There was also evidence that other professionals including doctors and care co-ordinators were involved in the care of people who use the service.