You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 January 2019

Eynesbury House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and we looked at both during this inspection. The home accommodates six people in the main house and three people in a separate annex, known as The Mews.

The inspection included two visits to the home. The first visit, on 31 October 2018 was unannounced. We arranged with the registered manager to return on 12 November 2018 to carry out our second visit. We received further information on 17 December 2018.

At our previous inspection in August 2017 we found several areas in which the home needed to improve. We rated the home as Requires Improvement overall and in all five questions. At this inspection (October and November 2018) we found that the staff team, led by a new registered manager and deputy manager, had made a number of improvements.

There was a registered manager in post who understood and carried out their responsibilities. They provided good leadership and direction for the staff team.

People felt safe and were protected as far as possible by staff who were trained to report any avoidable harm or abuse. Staff had assessed any potential risks to people and had put measures in place to reduce the risk. There were enough staff to meet people’s assessed needs and keep people safe. The provider’s recruitment process reduced the risk of them employing unsuitable staff.

Staff followed the correct procedures to prevent the spread of infection and knew how to report any accidents and incidents. Staff had undertaken training in how to give medicines safely and as they had been prescribed.

Senior staff carried out assessments of people’s needs to ensure that staff could meet those needs in the way the person preferred.

New staff received a thorough induction during which they shadowed more experienced staff. Staff undertook a range of training in topics that assisted them to do their job well. Staff supported people to shop and cook their own meals and involved other healthcare professionals to support people to maintain their health.

Staff supported people to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People liked the staff. Staff treated people with respect and showed they knew each person well. People were involved in planning their care and support. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and supported people to remain as independent as possible.

Support plans were personalised and gave staff detailed guidance relating to the support each person needed. People received personalised support that was responsive to their individual needs.

A complaints process was in place and the registered manager responded to complaints. The provider had a policy in place to meet people’s end-of-life care needs when the person needed this.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and the deputy manager. Staff were clear about their role to provide people with a high-quality service, thus upholding the provider’s values. Staff liked working at this home.

The provider had a quality assurance system in place. The system included a number of ways in which people, their relatives and staff could give their views about the home and how the provider could improve it. The provider carried out audits and monitoring checks on all aspects of the service delivered by the staff.

The registered manager worked in partnership with other professionals to give people joined-up care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 January 2019

The service was safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities and were competent to protect people from harm.

Staff assessed and managed any potential risks to people. Staff gave people their medicines safely.

The provider employed enough staff to meet people's assessed needs and keep them safe. The recruitment process made sure staff were suitable to work for this service.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 January 2019

The service was effective.

Senior staff assessed people's needs to ensure that the service could give them the support they needed.

Staff undertook training in a range of topics so that they could do their job well.

Staff supported people to eat and drink well. Staff involved other professionals to make sure people remained as healthy as possible.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 January 2019

The service was caring.

People and staff got on well together and liked each other.

Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and helped people to maintain their independence.

People were involved in making their own decisions about the care and support they wanted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 January 2019

The service was responsive.

Care plans gave staff detailed guidance on how to meet each person's individual needs.

Staff arranged as many activities, outings and entertainments for which their fund-raising efforts were able to provide the funding.

The registered manager responded to complaints in line with the provider's complaints policy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 January 2019

The service was well-led.

The registered manager provided good leadership and was aware of their responsibilities. They notified CQC of important events that happened in the service.

Staff knew and upheld the values of the service.

The provider had a quality assurance system in place which gave people, their relatives and staff opportunities to comment on the quality of the service.