The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Eleni House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Boxted Road, Colchester, Essex, CO4 5HF (01206) 848005

Provided and run by:
Cygnet Learning Disabilities Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

23 July 2015

During a routine inspection

Eleni House provides support and care for up to eight people with a learning disability who also have a range of complex needs, such as epilepsy, sensory impairment, diabetes and self-injurious behaviour. There were eight people living in the service when we inspected on 23 July 2015.

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.

People received care that was tailored to meet their needs and wishes. People were safe and treated with kindness by the staff. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring and compassionate manner. The atmosphere in the service was friendly and welcoming.

Robust recruitment and selection processes were in place to check that staff were suitable to work and care for people. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had the knowledge and skills to meet their complex needs. Staffing levels were flexible and supported people to follow their interests, take part in social activities and regularly access the local community.

Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the risk of abuse. Staff knew how to recognise, respond and report abuse correctly. There were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure people’s medicines were obtained, stored and administered safely.

Effective systems were in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included checks on the environment and risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised. Staff understood how to manage risks and provide people with safe care. Care and support was individual and based on the assessed needs of each person.

People were supported by the manager and staff to be independent and make decisions about how they led their lives and wanted to be supported. People were encouraged to attend appointments with other healthcare professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

Staff had developed positive relationships with people and respected their diverse needs. They were caring and respectful and knew each person’s individual care and support needs well. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and maintained and they were supported to express their views and choices by whatever means they were able to. Staff clearly understood each person’s way of communicating their needs and anxieties and responded appropriately.

Where people lacked capacity, appropriate actions had been taken to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interests. A complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.

People’s nutritional needs were being assessed and met. Where concerns were identified about a person’s food intake, or ability to swallow, appropriate referrals had been made for specialist advice and support. People were provided with a variety of meals and supported to eat and drink sufficiently. People enjoyed the food and were encouraged to be as independent as possible but where additional support was needed this was provided in a caring, respectful manner.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service. Staff were aware of the values of the service and understood their roles and responsibilities. The manager planned, assessed and monitored the quality of care consistently. Systems were in place that encouraged feedback from people who used the service, relatives, and visiting professionals and this was used to make continual improvements to the service.

7 May 2014

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we observed the care of six of the eight people currently living in the service. People who used the service had complex needs and were not able to verbally communicate with us.

We spoke with one visiting professional to the service and with five members of staff including the registered manager.

We looked at three people's care records. Other records seen included: care plans and risk assessment reviews, complaints and compliments log, staff meeting minutes, staff training and supervision records, accidents and incidents log, medication audits, health and safety audits, fire safety checks, maintenance logs, water temperatures, and safety checks on equipment.

We considered the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask; Is the service safe, Is the service effective, Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service a member of staff asked to see our identification and asked us to sign in the visitor's book. This meant that appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access the service.

Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, we saw that policies and procedures were in place if they should be needed. The registered manager confirmed that relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people would have their rights protected.

Records seen confirmed that staff were booked onto upcoming or had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and DoLS. This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.

There were effective policies and procedures for managing risk. Staff understood and consistently followed them to protect people.

Records seen confirmed health and safety was checked in the service and equipment was maintained and serviced.

Is the service effective?

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.

Records showed that support was provided through effective training, supervision and appraisal.

Is the service caring?

Care is individual and centred on each person.

Staff had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and knew them well.

Staff interacted with people who used the service in a caring, respectful and professional manner.

Staff were skilled at responding to people who were not always able to express their needs verbally.

People's care records showed that where concerns about their wellbeing had been identified the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from health care professionals, including a doctor, district nurses, psychiatrist and chiropodists.

Is the service well-led?

The management team of the service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were supported and trained to meet people's needs.

People's care records and risk assessments were accurate and up to date.

The provider had systems and procedures in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service provided. There were records to identify shortfalls in the service and how they had been addressed.

21 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help understand the experiences of people using this service. This was because the people who lived at this service had complex learning needs. We spoke with three members of staff, two visiting professionals, observed practice in the service and looked at care records.

We saw that staff were skilled in responding well to people who were not always able to express their needs verbally. We spoke to an advocate for people at the service who told us, 'The care that is delivered here is always good; I have never observed any practice that was not in the person's best interest.'

We examined the care records and risk assessments for four people and found these to be comprehensive. They had been regularly reviewed. We found that families had been involved in decisions regarding people's care needs. This meant that there were systems in place to support people.

We found that staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding adults. There were procedures in place to safeguard people who lived in the service to protect them from abuse.

The staff numbers on duty fluctuated in response to the needs of the people who lived at Eleni house. This ensured the appropriate numbers of staff were on duty to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

Records at this service were safely stored, accurate and up to date.

2 April 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spoke with an advocate to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. They told us that people at Eleni House, including those who cannot communicate verbally were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. They also said that people were encouraged where possible to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

They told us that there were adequate numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. They told us there were lots of activities including a recent visit to Colchester Zoo and a planned dinner out in Clacton soon. They said that there were a lot of one staff to one person activities and that people expressed happiness through their expressions and behaviour.

9 August 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

One person with whom we spoke told us that they like to go to the Pizza Hut and ' I like to go out for a coffee and I like to go shopping .' Also that they also told us that they like to listen to the TV and go to the sensory room.

The other people living at the home have very little verbal communication. We invited an expert by experience to join us on our visit to provide an insight into people's experience of living in the home. They told us that whilst activities are planned in the home, people need photos and objects to remind them of what is available, such as the sensory room and minibus to help them make choices. People should be encouraged to do things for themselves, such as help lay the table and buy their own toiletries where possible, with support from staff.

The expert by experience also noted that the entrance door to Eleni House is not at all homely. They said that when you go in Eleni House, it looks ok, but there are only numbers on everyone's doors and there should be photographs, soft objects and name signs for each of the doors, so that they all look different and belong to the people who have the room.

7 June 2011

During a routine inspection

People said that personal care at Eleni House is good when there are adequate numbers of staff on duty, but this is not always the case. They told us that there are not always adequate numbers of staff and that the number of trips outside of the home has been reduced because of this and also because of the lack of drivers for the minibus.

People with whom we spoke told us that staff speak clearly and are friendly and respectful to people living in the home. Relatives were aware of written information in the home, but not clear about the complaints procedure or aware of the opportunity to attend a carer forum or complete feedback surveys.

People said that staff do explain what is happening and ask people what their preferences are. They told us that the staff interact well with people and recognise the care needs of individuals. One person with whom we spoke said they were happy in the unit.

Relatives with whom we spoke did not raise any safeguarding concerns. They said they would raise issues if they thought people were being badly treated and thought that the staff would respond appropriately to any allegations of abuse.

People told us that cleaning standards are adequate most of the time. They said that the cleaners work hard to maintain hygiene standards in the unit, but the bathroom needs refurbishment and is difficult to keep clean.

We were told that the sensory room is used as a store cupboard and that the hydrotherapy pool is on longer available and that no other alternatives have been provided to replace the loss of these rooms.

People with whom we spoke told us that the staff are knowledgeable and know what they are doing, and that they were helpful and worked hard to support the needs of people in their care.