You are here

Eastry House Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 10 September 2019

About the service

Eastry House is a care home providing personal care to 15 older people living with learning disabilities and dementia at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 22 people.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 22 people. 15 people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. The service is based in a small village with good access to the community including the church, shops and hair dressers.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People did not consistently receive person centred care, for example one person told us they would like to visit their place of worship but had not been supported to. Some interactions we observed were not person centred, and the manager told us they were working to provide staff with more person-centred training.

People told us they felt safe and well supported at Eastry House. Risks to people had been identified but not consistently mitigated through detailed guidance for staff. For example, care plans lacked instructions for staff to follow if someone living with diabetes became unwell. Management had identified documentation needed updating, however work to improve this was slow and risks to people had not been prioritised. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff, but in some cases, staff were new or agency staff, who would benefit from detailed care plans and risk assessments.

Medicine management did not follow best practice for creams and ointments, but other medicines were managed safely, and plans were in place to improve this practice. Although the service was clean, people told us of infection control risks, including chairs that needed deep cleaning, and commodes which needed replacing.

People told us they were treated with dignity, compassion and respect. Most of the interactions observed were positive and it was clear staff knew people well and understood how to meet their needs.

People’s needs were assessed and when their needs changed, staff organised for involvement from the relevant healthcare professional.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

The service did not consistently apply the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service did not always reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support did not always focus on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

For more details, please see th

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 10 September 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 10 September 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 10 September 2019

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 10 September 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 10 September 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.