We carried out a review of the data available to us about Esk Hall Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Esk Hall Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
• Personal protective equipment (PPE) was stored and used appropriately. PPE stations were positioned around the service to ensure staff had access to PPE when needed. Staff had received extensive infection prevention and control (IPC) training and the management team monitored their practice and competence in this area.
• Person-centred care plans and risk assessments, in relation to COVID-19, had been implemented to ensures people’s needs were met and their well-being considered.
• There were robust visiting arrangements in place, including a bookings system, screening questionnaires, rapid lateral flow testing and use of personal protective equipment.
• A range of audits and monitoring documents were in place and completed by management to ensure staff consistently followed and applied best practice guidance. Cleaning schedules were in place and included more frequent cleaning of high touch areas.
Esk Hall Care Home is a residential home that is registered to provide accommodation for up to 20 older people who may be living with dementia. The home is situated in Sleights just outside Whitby. Accommodation is provided over three floors, all of which can be accessed by a lift.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
There was a manager in post who had registered with CQC. On the first day of inspection, they were not available. On the second day of inspection, they were present at the service. One of the directors and care manager assisted throughout the inspection.
Safe recruitment processes had been followed and appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed before employment commenced. Staff were aware of the safeguarding process and the action they should take if they had any concerns. Safeguarding information was displayed around the service and risk assessments had been developed when needed to reduce the risk of harm occurring. There was enough staff on duty to support people safely.
Medicines had been stored and administered safely by competent staff. Staff had access to personal protective equipment and staff promoted good infection control practices.
An induction process was in place which was completed by all new staff. Staff had been provided with regular training to maintain their knowledge and skills. Staff were supported by management, regular supervisions, observations of working practices and appraisals.
Where needed, people were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People told us they had access to their own preferred GP and other healthcare professionals.
People were empowered to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service support this practice. Consent to care and treatment was clearly documented and appropriate authorisations were in place when people lacked capacity to make decisions.
People were treated with dignity and their choices were respected by staff. People spoke positively about the caring nature of staff and the support they received.
Care records were person-centred and made reference to people’s preferences, their abilities and the support they required. They had been reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they continued to meet people’s needs and supported their aspirations. The use of technology was available to enable people to remain in contact with relatives who did not live locally. A complaints procedure was in place and people knew how to report any concerns.
People gave us positive feedback about the management team. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. People were given the opportunity to feedback about the quality of care they received. We saw the management team responded in a timely manner to any feedback provided to enable the service to continuously improve.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 8 September 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 17 September 2013 we found the service was meeting the regulations we inspected.
Esk Hall Care Home provides residential accommodation and personal care for up to 20 older people. On the day of the inspection there were nine people living in the home. The home is located in the village of Sleights and is surrounded by attractive grounds. The home does not provide nursing care.
The home had a registered manager in post. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff were able to tell us what they would do to ensure people were safe and people told us they felt safe at the home. The home had sufficient numbers of suitable staff to care for people safely and they were safely recruited.
Staff had received training to ensure that people received care appropriate for their needs. Training was up to date in mandatory areas such as infection control, health and safety, food hygiene and medicine handling and also in specialist areas of health care appropriate for the people being cared for.
Staff had received up to date training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood that people should be consulted about their care and that they should assume that a person had capacity to make decisions. They understood what needed to happen to protect the best interests of people whose capacity was impaired.
People’s needs related to eating and drinking were met. People enjoyed the meals and they were of a good quality. However, people were not asked for their views about the menu and they were not consulted for their views when the menu was changed.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw staff had a good rapport with people whilst treating them with dignity and respect. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s needs and worked together as a team. Care plans provided information about people’s individual needs and preferences.
People told us they were well cared for, however; they said they were sometimes bored, with little to entertain them. The registered manager was developing a plan to address this. We have made a recommendation about this.
People told us their complaints were responded to, however the results of complaint investigations were not always clear. People’s satisfaction with the outcome not always recorded so that the registered manager could not be sure they were responding to people’s concerns appropriately.
People who lived in the home, staff and visitors had raised concerns that the registered manager was sometimes absent from site due to other commitments, and that the quality of leadership was compromised when this happened. However, the registered manager had responded to these concerns and had put plans in place to address this. The registered manager and deputy had recently ensured that there was a management presence within the home at all times.
Quality assurance systems were in place. Some auditing was informal and meant that it was difficult for the service to use the information gathered to plan future improvements. For a home which was caring for nine people we judged that this did not pose a significant risk to people’s wellbeing.
We spoke with three people who lived at the home, a visitor and a visiting health care professional. People told us that they were well cared for and that the staff were "Always very kind and near at hand in case we need them." A visitor told us that they witnessed good care and had no concerns knowing that their relative was "In safe hands." A health care professional told us that the staff worked well with them, were quick to contact them if needed and followed their advice.
We saw that the home always sought people's consent to their care and treatment. Staff understood how people should be supported to make decisions and choices. We saw that people's care needs were assessed and that care plans had been drawn up for staff to follow. Risks had been addressed and care plans were kept under review to make sure people received care appropriate to their changing needs. Specialists were consulted where necessary.
The premises was well maintained and decorated to a high standard with good quality carpets and furnishings throughout. The manager assessed environmental risks and we saw safety checks to ensure people were protected.
People were protected by staff who were well recruited. The home had a quality assurance system to ensure areas for improvement were identified and acted on.
The manager was not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission.
We found that staff were attentive to people's needs and engaged them in activities such as painting or knitting. When we visited some people were also following their own interests and pursuits completing crosswords, reading or walking in the gardens.
We observed tea and cake was served during the mid afternoon and one person told us 'It's these extras that make such a difference'. However while some people were happy with things as they were, other people told us they would like more variation on the menu. We have asked the provider to look at how they consult with people and take action as needed.