Archived: Egerton House Residential Home Limited

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. Records were in place to monitor any specific areas where people were more at risk and explained what action staff needed to take to protect them.

The home was clean and fresh throughout. Improvements had been made to the general d'cor of the home and an action plan was in place to address areas still needing attention. The people we spoke with said they were happy living at the home. One person showed us their newly decorated room commenting, 'I am very pleased with it.'

We saw there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. This included improvements to the water management system.

There were systems in place to make sure people received their medications safely and we saw staff responsible for administering medication had completed training in this subject.

Is the service effective?

We saw people who used the service and their relatives had been involved in writing plans of care and these had been reviewed and updated to reflect changes in people's condition.

Staff had received appropriate professional development. We saw they had access to a structured induction process and a varied training programme which helped them meet the needs of the people they supported.

Staff had received formal and informal support sessions on a regular basis. Some staff told us they had not received a recent appraisal of their work but the provider said arrangements were being made for these to take place in the coming weeks. They told us they had evaluated the training each staff member needed over the coming year and we saw appropriate training sessions had been booked, or were being arranged.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by kind, caring and friendly staff. We saw staff interacting with people positively. They encouraged them to be as independent as they were able to be, while providing support as needed.

People looked well-presented and cared for. We spoke with five people who used the service, they said they were happy with the care provided and complimented the staff for the way they cared for people. One person told us, 'I have lots of confidence in them (the staff).'

Care files contained information about people's needs and preferences and further detail was being added to provide staff with a clearer picture of each person being supported. We saw care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

Care records demonstrated that when there had been changes in people's needs outside agencies had been involved to make sure they received the correct care and support. For example we saw timely referrals had been made to the GP or other healthcare professionals.

The home had a complaints procedure which was available to people using and visiting the service. No complaints had been recorded since our last inspection.

Is the service well-led?

The registered manager had been working part time at the home for the last few months with the provider visiting more often to ensure improvements were made in line with the action plan in place. The provider told us the manager was now working five days a week at the home. However they said they would continue to visit the home one to two days to support them and monitor improvements.

There was a quality assurance system in place to assess if the home was operating correctly. We saw checks had been carried out to monitor that staff were following company policies and the home was being maintained correctly. We saw where areas still needed attention an action plan was in place to address shortfalls found at the service.

Satisfaction surveys had been used to enable people to share their views on the service provided. This helped the provider to assess if people were receiving the care and support they needed. Questionnaires we sampled showed people who used the service, relatives and visiting professionals were satisfied with the service provided. However, a summary of the outcome of the survey had not been shared with the people who used, visited and worked at the home.

The manager told us regular formal meetings with people who used the service had not taken place. However they said as there were only a few people living at the home they saw them regularly to discuss any issues that might arise. People's comments indicated they were happy with how staff supported them and the home's facilities.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We saw staff had access to policies and procedures as well as a staff handbook to inform and guide them. However, policies and procedures had not been reviewed since 2010 to make sure they reflected how the home operated. The provider and manager told us they would review them as soon as possible.

At this visit we found the provider had addressed the shortfalls we identified at our last inspection. This included a new boiler being fitted, repairs or replacements to some of the bathing and toilet facilities and some redecoration. We also saw the path at the front of the building had been resurfaced to make it safer for people to enter and leave the home.

We saw the provider had an action plan in place regarding further redecoration, replacement of some carpets, changes to the nurse call system and improvements in the garden.

We spoke with four people who used the service, a visitor and three members of staff. They told us they thought the improvements made the home much nicer to live and work in.

As part of this visit we also checked if there was a suitable complaints procedure in place. We saw people had been made aware of the complaints procedure, which was included in the home's service user guide and displayed in the reception area. The people we spoke with said they had no complaints and spoke positively about living at the home.

The premises were clean and fresh however improvements were required in some areas such as the hot water system, driveway and general redecoration of rooms. An action plan was in place to address the more urgent shortfalls but not the improvement of the general environment. The people we spoke with raised no concerns about the general environment. A visitor told us the home was always clean adding, 'There are never any nasty smells here.'

Where people needed specific equipment as part of their care delivery, for example to help with their mobility, it was readily available. Where staff were using equipment to help people they did so in a safe and appropriate manner.

Background checks had been carried out on staff before they started to work at the home. This included ensuring staff underwent a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check which checks people are suitable to work with vulnerable people.

There were systems in place to gain peoples views and check if staff were following company policies.