Eastbury House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained good

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
 

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff felt confident raising concerns and told us managers listened to feedback and encouraged open communication. A staff member said, "Everyone is willing to support and help when needed."

Incidents, accidents and safety concerns were reviewed through handovers, team meetings and supervision, enabling lessons to be shared and embedded into practice.

New staff were supported through a structured induction, training and shadowing experienced colleagues. One staff member told us, "I shadowed some of the most experienced staff who explained in detail what I am expected to do." Care plans and risk assessments were regularly updated, and any changes to people's needs were communicated during handovers. This ensured learning was shared across the staff team and contributed to continuous improvements in the safety and quality of care provided.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The service followed a clear and structured process to support people moving into the home. Comprehensive pre-admission assessments were completed to identify people's needs, risks and preferences, and these were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained accurate and reflected current needs. Relevant information was shared with healthcare professionals and other services, including hospitals, when required. Essential information was also maintained in a hard-copy format for use in emergencies. For example, people had overview documents detailing their health and support needs to help professionals provide appropriate care.

Staff worked in partnership with people, their relatives, and health and social care professionals to ensure care plans were person-centred and regularly reviewed. Relatives told us staff knew people well, understood their preferences, and responded appropriately to changes in their needs. One relative described staff as knowledgeable, patient and kind, while another told us the service had contributed to significant improvements in their family member's health and wellbeing since moving into the home.

Staff told us they felt well supported when new people moved into the service and had access to the information needed to provide safe and effective care. They described using care plans, risk assessments, handovers and daily records to understand people's individual needs and preferences and deliver personalised care.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood their roles and responsibilities in identifying and reporting concerns of abuse. Information relating to the provider's safeguarding procedures was displayed within the service, and safeguarding and whistleblowing policies were in place to support staff in raising concerns appropriately. One staff member told us safeguarding training had helped them understand the importance of recognising and reporting concerns promptly.

Safeguarding concerns were documented, reviewed by management and used as opportunities for learning to help reduce the risk of recurrence.
Where people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) the service had made applications to the local authority and there was clear monitoring in place. DoLS ensure if a person is restricted in a way that deprives them of their liberty in a care home, it is only done when it is in their best interests, is necessary for their safety, and all other options have been considered.

People told us they felt safe living at the service, and this was confirmed by relatives. One relative told us, "[Person] is very happy and feels safe and at home in Eastbury House." Another described the support their family member received as "loving and caring" and said they hoped they would find a home of the same quality if they ever needed care themselves. We observed people were comfortable in the presence of staff and people told us they would speak with staff if they were worried about their safety.
 

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff adopted a balanced and proportionate approach to managing risk and had the training and guidance needed to support people safely.

Risks to individuals were assessed, reviewed and managed to help keep people safe. These included risks associated with falls, pressure care, nutrition and hydration. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and told us they used care plans, risk assessments and handovers to provide safe, person-centred care. One staff member said staff "put safety first" and reported concerns promptly to ensure people received the support they needed.

Where people required support with moving and handling, appropriate equipment and guidance were in place to reduce risks. Staff had received moving and handling training and understood how to support people safely. Relatives told us they had confidence in staff's skills and one relative commented that the skills of staff were "impeccable" and that staff were "very skilled and knowledgeable and know each person's needs."

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People lived in a safe, clean and comfortable environment that supported their wellbeing. Regular checks of the premises, equipment and safety systems were carried out to identify and address concerns, including fire safety, water hygiene and environmental hazards. Staff told us maintenance issues were reported promptly, and action was taken when required.

Although some areas of décor appeared tired following the installation of a fire sprinkler system, the provider had recognised this and was in the process of redecorating and improving these areas. An environmental risk assessment had been completed to identify and manage any risks associated with the ongoing improvement works, helping to ensure people remained safe while changes were taking place.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at the home. People had personalised Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) which clearly detailed the support they would require in an emergency. Staff were familiar with these plans and demonstrated a good understanding of the action they would take to support people safely in the event of a fire or other emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs safely and provide person-centred care. Staffing levels were regularly reviewed, and relatives told us there were always enough staff available to support people when needed. One relative said, "There always seems to be a good ratio of staff to people."

Safe recruitment processes were followed, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, references and identity verification, to help ensure staff were suitable for their roles.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to support people safely and effectively. Training was monitored by the management team to ensure staff remained up to date and completed any required refresher training. Staff spoke positively about the support they received and felt confident in their roles. One staff member told us, "I strongly feel that I receive the training and support required to carry out my job well."

Regular supervision, appraisal and competency checks helped ensure staff maintained safe and effective practice. Staff described the management team as approachable and supportive and felt comfortable raising concerns or sharing ideas for improvement. This helped promote a positive culture and ensured people received safe, high-quality care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.
 

The service was clean, comfortable and maintained to a good standard. Effective cleaning schedules were in place, and regular infection prevention and control audits were completed to monitor cleanliness and hygiene throughout the home. Records showed these checks were carried out consistently, and staff received training to support safe infection prevention and control practices.

Staff had access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and understood how to use it appropriately. Our observations showed staff followed infection prevention and control procedures in practice.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicines safely as prescribed for them, including topical medicines, time-specific doses and ‘when required’ medicines. If people administered some of their own medicines, it had been assessed as safe for them to do this. There were suitable arrangements for ordering, storage and disposal, and temperature monitoring, including for medicines needing cold storage and those requiring extra security.

Medicines care plans were in place, and risks were considered for people using higher-risk medicines such as anticoagulants, and flammable topical medicines. Any errors or incidents were reported, so that systems could be put in place to prevent them recurring. Medicines audits took place to identify any improvements that were needed.

Staff completed ongoing training and competency assessments to ensure they remained skilled and confident in the safe administration of medicines.