You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Eastway Romford. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 July 2017

The inspection took place on 15 June 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice as they are registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. We needed to be sure that someone would be in the office to speak to us.

Eastway Romford provided personal care to people with learning disabilities while they were on holiday. At the time of our inspection they had supported one person in their own home for personal care and five people on two holidays. This was the first inspection of the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

The inspection took place on 15 June 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice as they are registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. We needed to be sure that someone would be in the office to speak to us

Staff had good understanding of people's needs and demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding from abuse. Before people went on the holidays, staff ensured that risk assessments were completed and proper planning undertaken so that potential harm to people was managed. The service had a recruitment processes which required that new staff were checked before they started work.

The service provided support, training and supervision to enable people to work effectively. Staff understood the principles of Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensured that people made decisions about their care, whenever they had the capacity. People were also supported to have meals food that reflected their needs and preferences. When needed, staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people had access to medical care and medicines.

Staff ensured they treated people with respect and dignity. There was good communication between staff and relatives. This showed that relatives were updated with information about people's well-being. People and relatives could also make a complaint if they were not happy with the service.

The registered manager had systems in place for reviewing the quality of the service and addressing any identified shortfalls and making improvements. The management structure and the mission statement were clear and showed that the service was forward-looking with plans for the future.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 July 2017

The service was safe. Risk assessments were completed and staff knew the actions they would need take record and report incidence of abuse.

There were enough staff available to meet people's needs.

Staff supported people to take medicine when required.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 July 2017

The service was effective. Staff had received training and support in their roles. They understood the requirements of Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensured that, wherever possible, people consented to their care.

People had access to healthcare professionals when they required them.

People were provided with sufficient amounts to eat and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 July 2017

The service was caring. Staff understood people's needs and treated them with respect and kindness.

People could choose how to be supported and staff respected their individual needs and preferences.

Staff had good knowledge about people's needs which were detailed in their files.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 July 2017

The service was responsive. People's care and support was based on their choices, needs and preferences. Care plans provided guidance for staff on how to meet people's needs.

The service had a complaints policy which explained the process and how people and relatives could make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 July 2017

The service was well-led. The mission statement was clear and the service was well managed.

There were quality assurance systems in place to ensure feedback was sought and improvements were made to the quality of the service.