Eden Manor Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager reflected on safety events and worked with staff to learn lessons and make improvements. Lessons learned were shared with other services also operated by the provider.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People had access to a range of health and social care professionals when needed. Documents were in place to support people when they moved between care services. For example, detailed hospital passports were available so hospital staff knew people’s key needs when they were admitted.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training and raised no concerns about staff practices at the home

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been assessed. Risk assessments were detailed, person-centred and effective at reducing risk. Staff knew what support people required to manage risks to themselves and others. They were observed putting risk assessments into practice to keep people safe.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental risk assessments were in place to protect staff and people. The environment was clean and homely. People had access to an enclosed garden and a wide range of facilities within the service.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff and people we spoke with told us the provider had recently increased staffing. They were also introducing dining room assistants to ensure staff had time to support people appropriately at mealtimes. These changes were not yet fully embedded, but people were positive about the change.

Staff were recruited in line with best practice guidance and were up to date with required training. A relative said, “All the staff seem to be well trained.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to reduce the risks of people and staff catching and spreading infections. The service was very clean and tidy. Housekeeping staff were observed ensuring frequent touch points were cleaned multiple times a day.

The service did not always make sure that medicines were safely administered and recorded to meet people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Most medicines were safely administered and recorded, but we found some areas for improvement. For example, minimum dose intervals were not consistently adhered to. One medicinewas administered earlier than the recommended timeframe on several occasions. There was a delay in the supply of a cream was not promptly reported for learning. We raised these concerns with the registered manager who took immediate action to ensure similar errors could not happen again. Staff worked with other providers to help ensure that people’s medicines were reviewed when needed. Medicines were stored safely and securely.