We carried out a review of the data available to us about Edward House 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 Edward House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Edward House Care Home provides support and personal care to up to three people who require support with their mental health. The home is a terraced house, on two floors with three bedrooms and a garden at the back. At the time of the inspection three people were living at the home.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People trusted the staff and felt safe with them. The management and staff had assessed potential risks to their safety. Ways to reduce these risks had been explored and were being followed appropriately.
Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from potential abuse, bullying or discrimination. Staff knew what to look out for that might indicate a person was being abused.
Staff treated people as unique individuals who had different likes, dislikes, needs and preferences. Staff and management made sure no one was disadvantaged because of their age, gender, sexual orientation, disability or culture. Staff understood the importance of upholding and respecting people's diversity. Staff challenged discriminatory practice.
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 supported this practice.
Staff understood the way people expressed their views and the service made sure no one was disadvantaged because of the different ways people communicated.
Everyone had an individual plan of care and support which was reviewed with them, on a regular basis.
Staff had been trained in the management of medicines and suitable policies and systems were in place to ensure people’s medicines were managed safely.
Staff were positive about working at Edward House and told us they appreciated the support, encouragement they received from the management.
People who used the service, staff and outside healthcare professionals had regular opportunities to comment on service provision and had made suggestions regarding quality improvements.
People knew how to complain if they needed to and were asked if they were satisfied and happy with the service on a regular basis. Everyone working at the home understood the need to be open and honest if mistakes were made.
The management team worked in partnership with other organisations to support care provision, service development and joined-up care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 15 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to three adults with mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection two people were using the service. At the last inspection on May 2015 the service was rated as Good.
The service did not have a registered manager in post. The service had an interim manager in the role since September 2016 while the role was advertised. The provider told us a new manager had now been appointed and had started induction. We spoke with the newly appointed manager who told us they had started the process to register with the CQC as the registered manager. 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.
People who used the service told us they felt safe and were happy with the care and support provided. We found that systems were in place to help ensure people were safe. Staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and the abuse reporting procedures. People’s finances were managed and audited regularly by staff. People were given their prescribed medicines safely.
We found people were cared for by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.
Staff received regular one to one supervision and undertook regular training. People had access to health care professionals and the home sought to promote people’s health. The interim manager and staff had good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People using the service all had capacity to make their own decisions about their care and support and nobody's freedom was restricted. All the staff we spoke to demonstrated an understanding of MCA and DoLS and worked in line with the code of practice when supporting people.
Arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The support plans contained a good level of information setting out how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. Care and support was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and staff knew people well. The support plans included risk assessments.
We observed interactions between staff and people living in the home and staff were kind and respectful to people when supporting them. Staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported to attend meetings where they could express their views about the service.
We found that people were supported to access the local community and wider society. People using the service pursued their own individual activities and interests, with the support of staff if required.
People who lived at the home felt comfortable about sharing their views and talking to the interim manager if they had any concerns. The interim manager demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities and staff told us the interim manager was always supportive. There were systems in place to routinely monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.
We inspected Edward House Care Home on 29 May 2015. This was an announced inspection. The service was given 24 hours’ notice because we needed to be sure that someone would be in.
The service provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to three adults with mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service.
There was not a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. The previous registered manager left the service in January 2015. The manager told us they had been acting in the role since January 2015 and planned to be until a registered manager is appointed. The service had notified the Care Quality Commission about the absence of a registered manager for a continuous period of 28 days or more. 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.
People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and were happy with the care and support provided. We found that systems were in place to help ensure people were safe. For example, staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and the abuse reporting procedures. People’s finances were managed and audited regularly by staff. People were given their prescribed medicines safely.
We found people were cared for by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.
Staff received regular one to one supervision and undertook regular training. People had access to health care professionals and the home sought to promote people’s health. The manager and staff had good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People using the service all had capacity to make their own decisions about their care and support and nobody's freedom was restricted. All the staff we spoke to demonstrated an understanding of MCA and DoLS and worked in line with the code of practice when supporting people. Arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The support plans contained a good level of information setting out how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. Care and support was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and staff knew people well. The support plans included risk assessments. Staff had good relationships with the people living at the home and the atmosphere was happy and relaxed.
We observed interactions between staff and people living in the home and staff were kind and respectful to people when supporting them. Staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported to attend meetings where they could express their views about the service.
We found that people were supported to access the local community and wider society. People using the service pursued their own individual activities and interests, with the support of staff if required.
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. The manager demonstrated a good understanding of their role and responsibilities and staff told us the manager was always supportive. There were systems in place to routinely monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.
People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. The care plans we read were based on needs identified during the assessments. We saw that care plans were reviewed monthly.
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Staff we spoke with were clear about their responsibilities to report concerns and were able to describe the different types of abuse.
There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. We saw that people were shortlisted for interviews based of the information from application forms they completed. They then had to be interviewed for their roles.
People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. We saw that customers were regularly asked to give their views of the service through customer feedback forms.
We found the provider had addressed our concerns raised in our last report published in 2012 and they were maintaining the safety of people who used the service.