Eskdale House

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 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 reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Learning was shared within team meetings and with the wider organisation through management meetings. The registered manager was responsive to feedback and wherever possible took immediate action to mitigate risks and embed learning.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

Pre-admission assessments were completed before people moved into the service to make sure their needs and preferences could be met whilst also meeting the needs of people already living at the home.

Staff worked with external partners such as district nurses, GP’s and other specialist teams to make sure people received timely and appropriate care.

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 attended training in safeguarding and mental capacity and consent. One staff member said, “It’s about ensuring everyone is kept safe. Any form of abuse should be reported and any changes to the person which may indicate something is wrong.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that DoLS applications had been submitted appropriately however notifications to CQC had not always been submitted in a timely manner. The registered manager submitted them retrospectively and offered assurances they would be submitted in the future.

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.

People and their relatives were involved in planning their care and assessing risks.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, and facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

Some concerns were identified during the inspection, including the key being left in a cupboard which contained cleaning materials, some window restrictor fittings not being appropriate and wardrobes were not fixed to the wall. The registered manager responded to these concerns immediately and took action to mitigate risks, including arranging for works to be completed and developing risk assessments. The provider responded by sharing lessons learned across their other homes to ensure people’s safety.

Some relatives described the environment as “feeling a bit clinical at times” and they said, “there could be more private space for families to visit.” The service manager said they would look into this and see if they could identify an appropriate space.

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.

Safe recruitment practices were followed, and staff completed a robust induction. The training offer was comprehensive and included refresher training. Staff received supervision meetings and appraisals in line with the providers policy.

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 home looked clean and there were no malodours.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

An electronic system was used for the recording of medicines. The registered manager said, “Errors are minimal now we are using the system as it flags concerns and moves from amber to green once medicines have been logged as given.” Staff understood the system and provided dignified and discreet support when administering medicines.