You are here

Archived: Eldon House Care Services Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2017

We carried out an unannounced inspection of this home on 15 November 2016. Eldon House care Services is a residential home providing personal care for up to 34 older people, who may have dementia. There were 33 people living at the home when we inspected. We last inspected the service on the 11 July 2013 and found it was compliant with the standards we inspected.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff obtained consent from people before they provided their care but the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were not appropriately applied where people lacked capacity.

People told us they felt safe living at the home .People were supported by a staff team who knew how to keep people safe from the risk of harm and abuse. People were kept safe as potential risks had been assessed and staff were working in ways to reduce these risks. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely. People received their medicines as prescribed from staff who had received appropriate training. People’s medicines were stored safely.

People were supported by staff who had the appropriate skills to provide personal care. People had sufficient qualities to eat and drink, they told us they enjoyed the food and were offered choices. People were supported to maintain their health.

People told us staff were kind and caring. People were supported to make decision about how their care and support was delivered and these were respected. Staff promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

People’s care and support needs were understood and met. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. People’s requests for help and support were responded to promptly and were respected. People were supported and encouraged to take part in activities which supported their personal interests and hobbies. People knew how to make a complaint and there was a process in place to appropriately investigate and address complaints.

Systems to monitor the quality and consistency of the service were not always effective at identifying the improvements required and needed further development. People and their relatives were complimentary about the home and how it was managed. People, relatives and staff were given opportunities to provide feedback and the information was being used to improve the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was safe.

People received their medicines as prescribed by appropriately trained staff.

People told us they felt safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of harm or abuse. There were sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff to meet people’s care needs.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was not consistently effective.

People’s rights were not always protected as the principles of the MCA were not being appropriately applied. People were supported by staff who had been suitably trained to carry out personal care.

People enjoyed the food and were offered choices. People were supported to maintain good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was caring.

People told us they were cared for by staff that were kind and caring. People were supported to make their own choices about their care. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained and their independence promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People were supported by staff who knew their needs and preferences well

People and their relatives were involved in the review of their care

People were supported to engage in activities that supported their personal interests or hobbies.

People and their relatives knew how to complain and complaints were investigated.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

Systems for monitoring the quality and consistency of the service were not always effective in identifying improvements required.

People were complimentary about the service and how it was managed.

People were provided with opportunities to give feedback on the service.