You are here

Everley Residential Home Requires improvement

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 29 August 2018

We undertook our comprehensive inspection of Everley on 15 and 18 June 2018. The initial visit date was unannounced with the second date announced. Our last inspection of Everley was on 01 December 2015. The service was rated good after this inspection.

Everley is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Everley accommodates a maximum of 16 older people that may have dementia or physical disabilities. People live in a building that was converted into a care home.. There was 16 people living at the home on the first day of inspection, and 15 on the second.

The provider is required to, and has a registered manager for the home. They were present throughout our inspection. 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.

People felt there was enough staff to keep them safe, and respond to their requests for assistance in a timely manner. Staff were of the view additional staff may help improve people’s safety and the provider was reviewing staffing levels on a monthly basis in response.

Improvement was needed to ensure that systems for infection control were effective. People received their medicines in a safe way. People felt safe and there were systems in place to identify and respond to risks. Staff were aware of safeguarding systems, although improvement in recording equipment people may use for lifting could be improved.

People’s rights were promoted. Staff sought people’s consent. Risks to people’s health were assessed and identified. Staff were supported and had received training although some training needed update. The provider had sourced a new training provider to update staff on key areas of skill and knowledge relevant to their job. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet, good fluid intake and had a choice of meals. People were supported to access the health care they needed.

The environment was small and homely although may not always be suitable for people with limited mobility if accommodated on the first floor. There was scope for improvement in respect of the environment regarding its decoration, and safety in respect of, for example infection control.

People were supported by staff who were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. People were valued by staff. People's independence was promoted. People were supported to express and make choices regarding their daily living. People were supported to maintain contact with significant others.

People and their representatives were involved in their care planning. Staff understood people's needs, likes, dislikes and personal preferences. People had the opportunity to engage in activities if they wished. People could make a complaint and thought they would be listened too. The provider was working with health professionals to develop ways of responding to people’s wishes and needs at times when they may be unable to share these.

Systems for quality monitoring were in place, but development of these needed to continue to address some aspects of quality within the service. The management team were well known to people, relatives and staff, who considered them approachable. The provider understood their legal responsibilities and were open and honest about the challenges faced in respect of improving the service so people were safe and received good quality care. We found the provider was learning from incidents and events following input from other agencies.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was not always safe

People felt well supported when requesting assistance from staff and felt sufficient staff were available. Staff felt people were safe but additional staff would improve people’s safety.

People were not always protected from the risk of infection because Improvements were needed to ensure that systems for infection control were effective.

People received their medicines in a safe way.

People told us they felt safe at the home and there were systems in place to identify and respond to risks. There were systems in place to safeguard people and staff aware of these. There was improvement in assessing equipment people needed for lifting.

We found the provider had identified learning from incidents to improve people’s safety.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was effective

People's rights were promoted, and their consent sought by staff.

People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable about how to meet their needs but some refresher training was required

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and good fluid intake

People were supported to access the health care they needed.

The environment was small and homely although as confirmed by the provider may not always be suitable for people with limited mobility if accommodated on the first floor.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was caring

People were supported by staff who they said were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. People were valued by staff.

People's independence was promoted.

People were supported to express their views and make choices

regarding their daily living.

People were supported to maintain links with significant others.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was responsive

People, or their representatives were involved in their care planning.

People were supported by staff that had a good understanding of their needs, likes, dislikes and personal preferences.

People were able to engage in some activities if they wished.

People could make complaints and felt these would be listened to.

The provider was developing systems to enhance how they responded to people's needs at the end of their life.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 29 August 2018

The service was not always well led.

Systems for monitoring the quality of care were in place, but development of these needed to continue to address some aspects of quality within the service.

The management team were well known to most people, relatives and staff, who said they were approachable.

The provider and registered manager understood their legal responsibilities and were open and honest about the challenges they faced in further improving the service so people were safe and received good quality care.