The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Eden Place Limited - 13 Norfolk Street

13 Norfolk Street, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 5YQ (01926) 313227

Provided and run by:
Edenplace Limited

All Inspections

24 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who lived at 13 Norfolk Street about their experiences of the service. We also spoke with the member of staff on duty and the registered manager.

People we spoke with told us that the care that was discussed with them matched the care that was provided to them. We found there were regular reviews of people's care. We saw people's independence was promoted within their care plans and on the day of our inspection.

We saw that the care plans were person centred and reflected people's individual needs. We found the member of staff supported people as detailed within their care plans. We noted they were compassionate and caring when supporting people.

We found the home was clean and there was a cleaning schedule which the member of staff followed. We found people living at 13 Norfolk Street were involved with keeping the home clean. We saw checks were made by the member of staff to review the cleanliness of the home.

We saw the provider ensured that the appropriate checks were undertaken before a new member of staff was employed. The manager told us about the induction plan which new staff had to complete during their employment by Eden Place Limited.

We found the service had systems in place to monitor the quality of service being provided.

27 November 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We reviewed the service's compliance with a number of essential standards in June 2012, as part of a planned inspection. This inspection was carried out to look at all the information we had received since we told the provider where they needed to improve.

We spoke with a person who lived at the home, who told us about their experiences of the service. We also spoke with the deputy manager and the manager.

One person living there who we spoke with, told us that there were regular meetings held and they felt involved within the home. They also told us that staff were friendly and supported their needs.

We saw quality assurance checks had been implemented and the manager told us how these worked. We saw that resident meetings were held and a resident survey was due to be undertaken.

26 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who lived at Eden Place Limited ' 13 Norfolk Street and we looked at two care plans. We also spoke to staff that supported people who used the service and an affiliated location offered by the provider.

People we spoke with told us that the care they received matched the care that was discussed with them. People told us that they were involved in their care and would hold monthly discussions with the staff about their care plans. We saw that care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis and were signed by the people involved with the review.

People we spoke with told us that staff were friendly and supportive with their needs.

People we spoke with told us that felt safe within the home and knew who to speak to if they had any concerns. We saw that there was a complaint policy displayed within the home and emergency contact numbers were available.

We saw that there was a safeguarding policy available for staff which needed to be updated. We saw that the registered manager had identified that the safeguarding and restraint policy was outdated. The registered manager was reviewing and updating the policies to ensure they were up to date.

Staff we spoke with told us about the training they had undertaken and the support they received. Staff told us that there was no formal supervision sessions and had supportive informal discussions. There was no training matrix available to identify where there were any gaps in staff training. We spoke with the registered manager who had identified the area of formal supervision and information sharing as a concern.

We saw that the provider did not have a system to regularly seek the views of people using the service. We saw that there was no robust system to monitor the quality of service that people using the service receive. People who use the service, their representatives and staff were not asked for their views about their care and treatment. This meant that those views could not be acted upon.