You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

Eastbury House is a residential care home for 20 older people with a range of needs catered for. There were two floors as well as two people living in annexes within the grounds.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained good but also had one domain which was outstanding.

People were valued and made to feel special by staff who went over and above their job roles to help people to realise their wishes.

People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. One person told us, “I feel absolutely safe, if I want any assistance I call via my bell”.

There were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. These included a robust recruitment process and making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.

People received effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs monitored people’s health and well-being and made sure they had access to other healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. One health professional told us, “This home offers the most effective care by very well trained staff, it is empowering and inclusive”.

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.

Each person who moved to the home had their needs assessed before they moved in. Staff responded to people’s changing needs and supported them to maintain their independence. Care plans reflected people’s needs and aspirations.

Care plans were in place to make sure staff had the information they required to deliver care to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments held within the care plans identified the additional support people needed to keep them safe.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. There was a happy and welcoming atmosphere in the home. The registered manager led by example and constantly observed and monitored standards of care to make sure people were treated with kindness and respect.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and they were able to make choices about their day to day routines. People had access to a range of organised and informal activities which provided them with mental and social stimulation.

People were safe at the home because the provider had systems in place which minimised risks.

The provider learnt from incidents and accidents and took action to minimise further risks.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink where they needed assistance with this. Staff had training in food hygiene and infection control and understood their roles and responsibilities with regard to protecting people form the risks of infection.

Relatives told us there were no restrictions on when they could visit or call and it was evident from people's photographs and the conversations we had, people were supported to stay in touch with their friends and families One relative told us, “My [loved one] is extremely happy, the residents are given so much choice and control in their lives you never see anyone unhappy here”.

People were able to follow their religious and spiritual beliefs. People told us their faith was very important to them and they attended services and were able to receive holy communion within the home if they wished.

People were treated as individuals and were supported to follow their interests and hobbies. Special trips and events were arranged for people to promote their well-being and enjoyment of life.

People could be confident that at the end of their lives they would be cared for with kindness and compassion and their comfort would be maintained. Staff worked with other organisations to make sure high standards of care were provided and people received the support and treatment they wished for at the

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

The service remains Good.

People were safe at the home because the provider had policies and procedures which helped to minimise risks.

People were supported by adequate numbers of staff to maintain their safety and meet their needs.

People received their medicines safely from staff who were trained and competent to carry out the task.

People were protected from harm as the provider had safe processes and practice in place to safeguard them.

People were supported to live in a clean environment where infection control procedures were followed.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

The service remains Good.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were understood by staff and were consistently followed in making and recording best interest decisions.

People were cared for by staff who had the skills and experience to meet their needs.

Staff supported people to live healthy lives by providing regular physical exercise, nutritious meals and making sure people had access to healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

The service remained caring.

People were cared for by staff who treated them with kindness and respect.

People and visitors spoke highly of staff. Staff spoke about the people they were caring for with fondness.

People felt in control of their care and staff listened to them.

People said staff protected their dignity.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 18 April 2018

The service has improved to Outstanding

The service was committed to providing care and support which was very personalised and took account of people's wishes and

needs.

People were fully consulted about their car which reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

People remained active members of their local community because they accessed local facilities and the home was open to member of the community.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

The service continued to be good.

People lived in a home which was well led because the provider had a clear vision and staff were supported to achieve the vision.

The service was well led by an experienced and exceptionally proactive provider. They had an open leadership style, promoted a positive culture, and were

committed to high standards of care and continuous improvement.

People benefitted from staff who felt valued and appreciated. Staff were passionate and committed to providing quality care and were clear on their roles and responsibilities.

People could be confident that systems in place to monitor standards helped to drive improvements to the care and support they received.

People were listened to and their ideas and suggestions were put into practice where practicable.