Eden Lodge

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 people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to identify any trends or learning. We discussed the process for submitting notifications with the registered manager to ensure all incidents reportable to the local authority were also reported to CQC. Learning was identified which supported a culture of continuous improvement in the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Hospital passports were in place so key information could be shared in the event of an emergency. The registered manager attended transition meetings which supported effective onward placements for people who were accessed longer-term respite care in the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way for this to be achieved. 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 about safety quickly and appropriately with the local safeguarding adults team. People were safe in the service. A relative told us, “I do feel [family member] is safe. They love to go there and we’re settled because we know they are happy." Members of staff had received appropriate training to keep people safe and we observed safe practice when they supported people. A member of staff told us, “If I suspected abuse, I would ensure the person is safe, report the concerns immediately to my manager and the safeguarding adults team, record the facts, maintain confidentiality and contact emergency services, if needed.”

We saw evidence the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to review people’s capacity and understanding around receiving care and support. The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and, if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. Care plans were person-centred and detailed. Risks were assessed and mitigated appropriately. People’s care and was delivered in line with their care plans. Care plans were regularly reviewed before people attend the service for respite care and support. A relative said, "[Staff] call before [family member’s] stay. They’re very thorough. The call is about the care plan."

The provider had not always detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They had, however, made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Both the internal and external environments were well maintained. There was a refurbishment plan in place to make changes to bathrooms and toilets. We identified some cleaning products were not locked away securely and some wardrobes were not fixed to the wall. This presented a risk to safe care and support. We raised this with the registered manager who took immediate action to make changes and improvements and learning in place to mitigate any on-going risk needed to be embedded into practice.

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 which met people’s individual needs. Members of staff were deployed effectively throughout the service. Recruitment processes were safe and the provider had an active recruitment process in place to manage vacancies effectively. A relative said, "There seems to be plenty of staff when I go. They’re well trained and they know what they’re doing."

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 service was clean, dust and clutter free. Stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) were available throughout the care environment. A relative said, “[The service] is always clean and tidy.”

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. There were lockable medicine cabinets in each person’s room. When people came in for respite care and support, they brought their medications with them from their own home. The provider ensured they checked and booked in all the medication. Administration of medication was managed safely and there were regular audits and reviews to ensure compliance with agreed policies and processes. People who were able to manage their own administration of medications were supported to do so and a risk assessment was completed to ensure the self-administration process was managed safely. A relative told us, "There're no problems with medicines. Never has been."