Eden View Care and Response Services Ltd Also known as Eden View

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 service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to recruitment and governance. Staff were not recruited in line with legal requirements which place people at the risk of harm. Systems to support staff and gather their feedback were not robust.

This service scored 59 (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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had implemented new processes to help identify learning, but these were not yet embedded. For example, audits in the service were new and were not always identifying and rectifying issues we found at this assessment. Staff had not routinely had meetings, supervision sessions or appraisals to share good practice and learning. There were new processes to gather feedback from people who used the service, but these had only been introduced recently. The service did identify learning from safeguarding incidents and shared this with staff. Management investigated and reported safety events.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had implemented new processes to help identify learning, but these were not yet embedded. For example, audits in the service were new and were not always identifying and rectifying issues we found at this assessment. Staff had not routinely had meetings, supervision sessions or appraisals to share good practice and learning. There were new processes to gather feedback from people who used the service, but these had only been introduced recently. The service did identify learning from safeguarding incidents and shared this with staff. Management investigated and reported safety events.

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. People and staff told us they had confidence any concerns about abuse would be acted on. A person told us, “Yes, I feel confident raising concerns, they are nice on the phone.”

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had implemented new processes to help identify learning, but these were not yet embedded. For example, audits in the service were new and were not always identifying and rectifying issues we found at this assessment. Staff had not routinely had meetings, supervision sessions or appraisals to share good practice and learning. There were new processes to gather feedback from people who used the service, but these had only been introduced recently. The service did identify learning from safeguarding incidents and shared this with staff. Management investigated and reported safety events.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Staff completed risk assessments of people’s homes, and the equipment used.

The provider did not always recruit staff safely. Not all staff had the necessary checks made with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and these checks are a requirement for staff working with vulnerable adults. Where staff had started working prior to checks being in place, the provider had not completed risk assessments to assess any potential risks. This placed people at risk of harm and resulted in a breach of regulation regarding staff recruitment. The manager told us they had not fully understood the requirements around recruitment and any oversights had been corrected for new staff being employed.

The provider did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. Although staff had not received regular formal support, most staff we spoke with told us they felt supported and could go to the management for advice. Some staff felt support could improve. Some staff told us they had concerns about their induction and did not feel prepared for lone working. A person told us, “I feel new staff are sent out alone way too soon.” The management told us that supervisions were now planned, and all staff had received a recent supervision. They also assured us inductions would be extended if staff lacked confidence and requested more support. The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Management had been working to improve training levels and there was now good compliance with training across a range of relevant subjects.

Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There were enough staff to ensure people received care as planned. However, people and staff told us staff sometimes arrived late. Visit times were monitored and people were usually contacted when delays were unavoidable. The provider did not have written guidance about what people should expect as a reasonable delay and what constituted a late visit. We raised this with the manager for review.

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. People had a care plan and risk assessment advising staff how to reduce the risk of the spread of infections. The provider has policies around infection prevention and control and staff had knowledge of these.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had implemented new processes to help identify learning, but these were not yet embedded. For example, audits in the service were new and were not always identifying and rectifying issues we found at this assessment. Staff had not routinely had meetings, supervision sessions or appraisals to share good practice and learning. There were new processes to gather feedback from people who used the service, but these had only been introduced recently. The service did identify learning from safeguarding incidents and shared this with staff. Management investigated and reported safety events.