You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 December 2016

We inspected Eversleigh Nursing Home on 23 November 2016. The inspection visit was unannounced.

Eversleigh Nursing Home is divided into three separate floors and provides personal and nursing care for up to 42 older people, including people living with dementia. There were 35 people living at the home when we inspected the service.

A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and the associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection visit, however they were on extended leave from the service. An interim manager had been appointed to manage the service in their absence. We refer to the interim manager as the manager in the body of this report. During our inspection visit we also spoke with the development and delivery manager, who was assisting the interim manager three days each week at the home.

Staff received training in safeguarding adults and understood the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns. All necessary checks had been completed before new staff started work at the home to make sure, as far as possible, they were safe to work with the people who lived there. The manager and staff identified risks to people who used the service and took action to manage identified risks and keep people safe.

There were enough staff to care for people safely and effectively. People were supported by a staff team that knew them well. Staff received training and had their practice observed to ensure they had the necessary skills to support people.

People received their medicines as prescribed to maintain their health and wellbeing. People were supported to access healthcare from a range of professionals inside and outside the home and received support with their nutritional needs. This assisted them to maintain their health.

Care records were up to date and provided staff with the information they needed to support people responsively.

The provider, manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The manager had made applications to the local authority where people’s freedom was restricted, in accordance with DoLS and the MCA requirements. Decisions were made in people’s ‘best interests’ where they could not make decisions for themselves.

Staff knew people well and could describe people’s care and support needs. Staff treated people with respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence.

People were supported to take part in social activities and pursue their interests and hobbies. People made choices about who visited them at the home, which helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.

People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints received were investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. People who used the service and their relatives were given the opportunity to share their views about how the service was run, and action was taken in response.

Quality monitoring procedures identified where the service needed to make improvements. Where issues had been identified the manager took action to address them to continuously improve the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 21 December 2016

The service was safe.

People felt safe living at Eversleigh. Staff had been recruited safely and there were enough staff available to meet people's needs. People were protected from the risk of harm as staff knew what to do if they suspected abuse. Staff identified risks to people and took appropriate action to manage risks and keep people safe. Medicines were administered to people safely.



Updated 21 December 2016

The service was effective.

Staff completed an induction and training so they had the skills they needed to effectively meet people’s needs. Where people could not make decisions for themselves, people’s rights were protected; important decisions were made in their ‘best interests’ in consultation with people who were closest to them and health professionals. People received food and drink that met their preferences and supported them to maintain their health. People were supported to see healthcare professionals when needed.



Updated 21 December 2016

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well and respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff treated people with respect and kindness. There was end of life care planning in place to involve people in decisions that took into account their wishes and preferences.



Updated 21 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People were supported to take part in social activities in accordance with their interests and hobbies. People had an up to date record of their care needs and how these were being met to ensure they received consistent care from staff. People were able to raise complaints and provide feedback about the service. Complaints were analysed to identify any trends and patterns, so that action could be taken to make improvements.



Updated 21 December 2016

The service was well led.

The management team was approachable and there was a clear management structure to support staff. People were asked for their feedback on how the service should be run, and feedback was acted upon. Quality assurance procedures identified areas where the service could improve, and subsequent action was taken to improve the service.