Archived: Esther House

We considered the evidence collected under this outcome and addressed the following question, is the service effective?

Below is a summary of what we found. Please read the full report for the evidence supporting our summary.

Is the service effective?

We saw that staff treated people with respect and warmth and the support we observed was provided in a patient, sensitive, personal way. The people we spoke with made positive comments about the care they received. Comments we received included 'I'm happy, I'd walk out if I wasn't happy' and 'staff are all very pleasant, staff are polite and kind'.

We saw that some improvements had been made since our last inspection. A formal introduction programme had been introduced for new staff joining the home and training packages in safeguarding vulnerable adults, principles of care, health and safety and food hygiene had also been introduced. Some staff had completed or were in the process of completing their National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) training in care. We also saw that regular staff supervision sessions had been introduced which were held between individual staff members and the registered manager.

We saw that there were further improvements to be made in areas of staff training such as first aid, fire safety and moving and handling. We also saw that a staff appraisal process was being developed. However we found no evidence that people who lived at Esther House were receiving unsafe or ineffective care.

We talked with six of the people who lived in the home. They told us that they liked living at Esther House. They said 'The staff are very good' and 'They treat us with respect'. People told us that the food was very good and that they valued being able to stay as independent as possible. People told us that there had been some organised trips out and that they had enjoyed these.

We found that there were good arrangements for nutrition at Esther House and that the provider had quality assurance systems in place. Staff had benefited from a variety of training programme but we were not satisfied that adequate induction and supervision arrangements were in place.

We saw that there was a programme of activities for the Home with choice for those who wished to become involved and those who did not, with the option for people to pursue interests outside the Home.

The people who used the service talked highly of the staff - 'I'm very pleased to be here ' they are very kind' - 'They will get anything you ask for ' if you don't like something (to eat) they will get it for you.'