You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 January 2019

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good in four of the five domains and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format for those domains because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

This inspection took place on 04 December 2018 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in August 2016 we rated the service as Good.

Eastcroft Nursing Home 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 both were looked at during this inspection. The service can accommodate up to 21 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people using the service the majority of whom were living with dementia.

The house people lived in had a homely feel, however certain aspects of the environment were required to better meet the needs of people living with dementia. Carpets in a number of the communal areas had a complex pattern. This can cause confusing or disorientation to people, as they can perceive the floor to not be flat. The registered manager said they were in the process of reviewing the flooring across the home as part of ongoing home improvements.

People told us they felt safe living at Eastcroft Nursing Home. Hazards to people’s health and safety had been identified, and management plans produced to reduce the risk of harm. Staff understood their responsibilities around identifying and reporting suspected abuse. There was an ongoing safeguarding review taking place at the time of our inspection.

People’s support needs were regularly reviewed to identify the safe levels of staff needed to meet those needs. Robust recruitment processes ensured that before new staff worked at the home, they were safe and suitable to do so.

Staff ensured that people received their medicines as prescribed, or when they needed them. Only those staff that were trained and competent were able to manage and give people their medicines.

People lived in a clean home. Infection control processes meant that the environment and equipment were routinely cleaned to keep people safe from the spread of infections. Staff followed good infection control practices, such as using gloves and aprons when handling food, and were seen to regularly wash their hands.

The staff team kept people safe by reviewing accidents and incidents and taking action to prevent reoccurrences.

A comprehensive assessment of people’s needs was completed before they moved into the home. This ensured the staff had the skills suitable to meet those needs . Staff received training and supervision to keep them up to date with best practice. Nursing staff were supported to maintain their registration, and take part in additional training as necessary.

People had enough to eat and drink. We had positive feedback about the choice and quality of food that people ate.

There were good links with the local health care services, so people had access to GP’s and other health care professionals when needed. Peoples health was seen to improve due to the care and support they received

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were met. If a person could not make a specific decision for themselves people who had legal authority to make decisions for them where involved.

People were supported by staff that were caring, and respected their privacy and dignity. They felt involved in decisions on their day to day care, and staff knew the people they supported as individuals. People’s faiths, culture and lifestyles were respected.

Care plans had a good level of detail to enable staff to give a responsive level of care. These wer

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 January 2019

The service was safe.

People felt safe living at the home. Staff understood their responsibilities around protecting people from harm.

The provider had identified risks to people�s health and safety with them, and put guidelines in place for staff to minimise the risk.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people. Appropriate checks were completed to ensure staff were safe to work at the home.

People�s medicines were managed in a safe way, and they had their medicines when they needed them.

Infection control processes were robust.

Staff recruitment process ensured only suitable staff were employed at the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 January 2019

The service was effective.

Adaptations to decoration had been considered around the home to make it more dementia friendly. We recommend the provider continue with their redecoration and review the suitability of the patterned carpet that is present in communal areas of the home.

Peoples needs had been assessed prior to coming to the home, to ensure those needs could be met.

Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager, and had access to training to enable them to support the people that lived there.

People had enough to eat and drink and had specialist diets where a need, or preference, had been identified.

People had good access to health care professionals for routine check-ups, or if they felt unwell. People�s health was seen to improve because of the care and support they received.

People�s rights under the Mental Capacity Act were met. Assessments of people�s capacity to understand important decisions had been recorded in line with the Act. Where people�s liberty may be being restricted, appropriate applications for DoLS authorisations had been completed.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 January 2019

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and we saw good interactions that showed respect and care. People were supported in a dignified way.

Staff knew the people they cared for as individuals. This included their preferences and how they wanted to live their lives.

People could have visits from friends and family whenever they wanted.

People�s right to practice their faith was respected and supported by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People were involved in their care plans and their reviews. Care given reflected that as detailed in the care plans.

There was a complaints procedure in place.

Staff offered activities that matched people�s interests.

People were supported at the end of their lives to ensure their needs and preferences were met.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 January 2019

The service was well-led.

Quality assurance checks had been effective at ensuring that people had received a good standard of care and support.

Records management was good and the registered manager understood their responsibilities with regards to the regulations, such as when to notify CQC of events.

Feedback was sought from people via key worker meetings and annual surveys.

Staff felt supported and able to discuss any issues with the registered manager.