You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

This inspection took place on 23 July 2017 and was announced. The last inspection took place on 08 September 2015 when the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’. There were four breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, infection control, safeguarding and good governance. The service had produced an action plan and at this inspection we found significant improvements in all areas.

Eden House is a small residential and day care service for people who have learning disabilities. It is situated in a large five bedroomed property set in its own grounds in Droylsden, Greater Manchester. At the time of our inspection there were four people who lived there permanently, but two of these were on holiday. A fifth person was staying as a guest on respite care.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There was a warm and friendly atmosphere at Eden House, the home was secure and people told us they felt safe. Staff were familiar with the local authority safeguarding policy and procedures and when allegations of abuse had been made these were investigated.

There were sufficient staff to meet needs, and we saw that recruitment procedures ensured that staff were recruited safely. People who used the service were involved in both the recruitment process and new staff induction to their role.

People’s care records contained detailed information to guide staff on the care and support to be provided. They also showed that risks to people's health and well-being had been identified, and gave detailed instruction to staff to minimise the risks.

The staff we spoke with had an in- depth knowledge and understanding of the needs of the people they were looking after. We saw that staff provided respectful, kindly and caring attention to people who used the service. They ensured that they followed effective procedures to limit the spread of infection, including use of personal protective equipment. Staff were trained to administer medicines and we saw procedures were in place to ensure the safe management of medicines.

Staff understood issues around capacity and consent, and offered people choices to support their independence. People who did not have family or representatives and were not always able to speak for themselves had access to advocates who gave independent advice and acted in the person’s best interest.

Staff communicated well with each other and we saw that information was exchanged between staff informally throughout the working day, and a detailed handover meeting took place at the start and finish of every shift to ensure that care and support was provided in accordance with people’s changing needs.

People who used the service planed the menu, and told us the food was good. We saw that attention was paid to ensure people maintained a healthy and nutritious diet. We saw that staff monitored people’s physical and mental health needs, and ensured they had good access to healthcare staff.

People were treated in a caring and compassionate manner, by cheerful staff. One person who used the service told us, “It’s fabulous; I am free to do whatever I choose. If they asked me to leave I’d say no, it’s the best place I’ve lived in by far.” Care was person centred and delivered by staff who understood how to interact with the people who used the service. We saw people were comfortable and looked well cared for by staff who knew them well.

All the people who used the service had been referred to Eden House because their behaviours had been challenging at other service provision. However, there were few instances of challenging behaviour. Care plans reflected people’s needs

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was safe.

The building was secure, and well maintained. Environmental hazards were assessed and risks minimised.

There were enough staff who were safely recruited and knew how to protect people from harm.

Care records informed staff how to minimise risks in relation to people�s health and wellbeing.

There were appropriate systems in place for the effective ordering, control, management and administration of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was effective.

Where people were being deprived of their liberty the registered manager had taken the necessary action to ensure that people's rights were considered and protected.

Staff received sufficient training to allow them to do their jobs effectively and safely and systems were in place to ensure staff received regular support and supervision.

People enjoyed the food provided, and had good access to healthcare. Staff monitored their physical and mental health needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was caring.

Care was person centred and focussed on the individuality of each person who used the service.

Staff spent time talking and socialising with people who used the service, and assisting them with day to day tasks.

People�s privacy and dignity were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was effective.

People were involved in planning their care.

People�s care records contained detailed information to guide staff on the care and support to be provided, and showed that risks to people's health and well-being had been identified.

People were supported to develop and follow their interests.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was well led.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision, and the service had developed good systems to audit the quality of care provision.

The manager and registered provider understood their legal obligation to inform CQC of any incidents that had occurred at the service.

.