Eden Court Care Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The home under a different provider, was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance as they did not address issues that affected people’s safety and wellbeing. Improvements were found at this assessment and the home was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The home embedded a culture to ensure people were safe at Eden court. Records evidenced that staff knew how to report and record incidents, and the home recorded actions to mitigate future risks. The registered manager shared memos following any learning from incidents which ensured any changes were communicated quickly. Staff commented on a learning culture. A staff member told us that management always spoke about people’s safety, such as high risk of falls and if there was any action they needed to take to keep people safe.

The home had 2 units, 1 of which was a nursing unit and included a space for health professionals who provided therapy to people regularly. We were informed some people stayed for short periods of time and the unit would ensure there was continuity of care between different services. We received positive feedback about the transition process of this unit. One relative told us they had been fully involved in planning their loved one’s admission and felt comfortable in doing so.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to ensure people were safe at Eden Court. We observed a pleasant and relaxed atmosphere in the care home and people looked at ease and comfortable interacting with staff. Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe living at Eden court and their relatives also felt they were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to monitor and report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had completed training in safeguarding. We received feedback from partners that appropriate safeguarding referrals were now being made and the home completed follow up actions to prevent recurrence.

The home worked with people to identify and manage their risks. We found the home was using equipment to support people with their needs and risks, but this was not always used correctly. For example air flow mattresses were not always set at the correct setting. We raised this with the registered manager who took action to address this. We did not find any people had been harmed due to this. People were aware of their risks and what equipment was being used to mitigate their risks. One relative told us they were impressed with how the equipment was readily available for their loved one to use when needed, and this was not a lengthy process. Staff also had good knowledge of people’s risks and how to support people in a safe way to avoid any harm.

People were supported to be as independent as possible within the environment.There was in house maintenance staff to respond to any environmental concerns. During our observations, we noticed some small repairs that needed to be completed. We raised this with the registered manager who made a plan to address this. Most bedrooms and communal areas had been redecorated and refurbished. The environment was free from unnecessary hazards. The provider had an up-to-date fire risk assessment in place for the building and personal emergency evacuation plans in place for everyone who lived at the home.

People and relatives were positive about the staff at Eden court. Throughout our visits, staffing levels in the care home matched the staff duty rotas and was in line with the dependency tool. Staff were visibly present throughout and were quick to respond to people’s questions and requests for support.We observed positive interactions between people and staff. The staff team was a combination of experienced staff who had been at the home for a number of years, some relatively new staff and agency staff.The registered manager also informed us they had also recruited more staff, and they were going through their pre-employment checks so would no longer require the use of agency staff. The provider completed a wide range of pre-employment checks and new staff completed an induction which included training and shadowing opportunities. Staff felt they were trained in their role to meet people’s needs effectively. Relatives and people also spoke positively about the staff. One relative said, “Each and every member of staff has one aim while at work and that is to care for the people as though they were their own family members."

The home was clean and welcoming on arrival, and throughout our inspection visit. Everyone we spoke with made positive comments about the housekeeping team. One relative said, “The place has a clean, fresh feeling to it with no artificial air freshener smell.” There were PPE stations throughout the home. A number of actions had not yet been completed that were set by the Infection Prevention Control team during their visit in December 2024. Cleaning schedules were in place, but we found these did not highlight specific areas, so it was unclear what tasks had been completed.

The home made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. During the inspection we found stock levels of medicines to be correct. Temperature monitoring of treatment rooms and fridges where medicines were stored was documented twice a day. People that were prescribed patches had positioning charts in place which were checked daily, to ensure the patches were still attached to their body. Medicines that needed certain time intervals between doses, e.g: Paracetamol, had charts to document when each dose was last given. This would ensure a safe gap was left between each dose. Creams were not always applied as often as prescribed. However, this appeared to be due to documentation on the topical medication administration charts (TMARs). Two residents we spoke to said they received good care and staff were compassionate. One of these residents said they usually get their Parkinsons’ disease medicines on time. Staff also stated they have alarms set to ensure these medicines are given on time. People that needed to have their medicines given ‘covertly’, hidden in food or drink, had pharmacist input to ensure these were given safely and effectively.