You are here

Eastlands Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 5 July 2019

About the service: This service supports people with a learning and/or physical disability. At the time of the inspection there were 13 people using the service, three of those were currently receiving hospital treatment.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People’s experience of using this service:

The provider had not met the characteristics of ‘Good’ in all areas. This has meant the overall rating for this service has changed from ‘Good’ to ‘Requires Improvement’. We have identified three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. More information about this is in the full report and can also be found at www.cqc.org.uk

There have been a high number of incidents that have required investigating both internally and externally by the local authority safeguarding team. Some people’s health and safety may have been affected. Most people received their medicines safely; however, we did find some minor areas where improvements were needed. There were enough staff to support people. People who presented behaviours that may challenge others were supported to reduce the risk to them and others. Specialist training was being completed to ensure that people were cared for by appropriately trained and competent nurses. The risks to people’s health and safety were assessed to support the provision of safe care and treatment. The risk of the spread of infection was safely managed. The provider had systems in place to help staff to learn from mistakes.

People received care and treatment in line with the characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. There were gaps in some staff training, although this was being addressed. 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 support this practice. However, conditions on the restrictions for one person had not been appropriately adhered to. People received the support they needed to maintain a healthy diet. People had access to other health and social care agencies where needed. The environment had been adapted to support people living with a physical disability.

People and relatives found the staff to be caring and respectful. However, some felt staff could do more to spend more meaningful time with them. There were periods of the day when people were left alone in communal areas with little staff engagement. People were treated with dignity when personal care was provided. Independence was encouraged. People felt involved with decisions and that staff respected their wishes. People’s records were stored securely to protect their privacy.

People were not always supported to lead their lives in their chosen way. Staff did not engage with people sufficiently to enable them to follow their chosen hobbies and interests. People’s care records contained detailed examples of their personal preferences and choices. Staff did not do enough to support people with this. People’s needs were assessed prior to them coming to live at the home. However, we found some examples of inconsistent information, or changes to care that had not been documented in people’s care plans. Complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s complaints policy. People were not currently receiving end of life care. End of life care plans were basic and required more detailed reference to people’s personal preferences.

Quality assurance processes were in place; however, these were not always effective in in highlighting and addressing the concerns we have raised during this inspection. A high turnover of managers has led to low staff morale which has con

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 5 July 2019

The service was not consistently safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 July 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 5 July 2019

The service was not consistently caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 5 July 2019

The service was not consistently responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 5 July 2019

The service was not consistently well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.