Eothen Residential Homes - Wallsend

Eothen Residential Homes Wallsend is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 64 people. The service provides support to older people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 62 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Feedback about the service from staff, people and those close to them was consistent and

exceptionally positive. One person told us “It’s great here, people are very friendly, and the staff are nice. If you ask them for something, they will always help. It’s a home away from home.” One relative told us “This home is excellent, I have no issues whatsoever, I have been in many care homes for my line of work and this one is excellent. They have an incredibly sensitive manager who has supported me and my family throughout. I wish we had more home likes this one.”

Risks to people were identified and systems were in place to reduce them, including falls, skin integrity, eating and drinking, and accessible means for people to go outdoors. Health and safety checks were regularly conducted. Accidents and incidents were recorded, and actions were taken to mitigate the risk of reoccurrence. Lessons were learned and shared across the staff teams as required, with reflective practice sessions being available so staff could learn what to do better next time.

Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and knew how to do this. The service had enough safely recruited staff who were appropriately skilled and knew people's needs to help keep them safe.

Assessments were person centred and care was very responsive to people's needs. There was an established and motivated staff team highly trained to carry out their roles effectively. The service and home environment was accessible and had been adapted to meet people's needs.

Distinctive leadership at location and provider level had achieved a service that was effective and responsive. The service was innovative and dedicated to ensuring continuous quality improvement to make a real difference for people. The provider worked alongside local universities who undertook research projects around care and wellbeing. For example, the service had been part of a research project about the benefits on people if staff didn’t wear uniforms. One relative told us how this made a difference, “I like that they don’t wear uniforms, I feel it puts everyone at ease.”

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The building was well-maintained, spacious and had plenty of room for activities. Throughout the home there were no restrictions, all residents could access all floors, gardens and communal areas as they wished. The gardens were enclosed and designed so people looped around the home and could easily find their way back in. This was well received by people and their relatives. One relative told us, “Security is excellent, nothing is locked which doesn’t restrict people, but all external doors are alarmed, if someone goes outside, they know where people are and can still keep an eye of them.”

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published October 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe, effective and well-led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service is now outstanding based on the findings of this inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Eothen Residential Homes Wallsend on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

The home had a registered manager who had been registered since May 2016. 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 provider displayed a clear commitment to providing innovative dementia care through research, design, training and support. Working together with a dementia care organisation, the provider designed the environment to maximise people’s independence and wellbeing. People had constant access to safe, enclosed landscaped gardens. People lived in 'households' of up to thirteen people, each with their own kitchen area. This inclusive design meant people could maintain and improve upon their independent skills.

People who used the service and staff dined together to promote the culture of a family home. Staff prepared breakfasts in the household kitchens which enabled people to see and smell their meal being made. People told us the food available in the home was varied and of a good quality. The chef was aware of people's needs. People were able to assist staff with household tasks such as washing or drying up if they wanted to. We saw a number of examples of the provider’s strong emphasis on delivering a home from home experience.

The provider had designed a creative and thorough training program to ensure staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver their model of care. Training focussed on feelings and connecting emotionally with people living with dementia. Staff were animated and passionate when describing the care provided in the home. They told us about dementia experiential training they had attended which included distorting people’s vision and dexterity to help staff to understand how people with dementia may feel.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Applications had been made for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), where it was considered that people would be unable to keep themselves safe if they were to leave the home unaccompanied.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff accompanied people to appointments at the hospital, or at their GPs or dentist. Healthcare professionals we spoke with, who visited the home regularly, were very positive about the care provided at the home.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to protect people using the service from abuse or any concerns in relation to their safety. Staff we spoke with were clear on their responsibilities in identifying and identifying and responding to safeguarding concerns. All staff we spoke with told us they felt any concerns would be properly dealt with by the registered manager.

Risks were well managed. Risk assessments showed a positive response to risk taking where it enriched people's lives. People were supported to be independent and any risks were assessed with mitigating actions identified to ensure people's care was delivered as safely as possible.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs. During our inspection we saw the atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed and this was confirmed by people and relatives’ feedback. Comments received throughout the inspection were that there were enough staff to meet people's requests for assistance promptly and to allow staff time to spend quality time with people chatting or taking part in activities. Safe recruitment procedures had been followed. The provider told us recruitment was valued based to enable the home to employ people based on their caring nature and drive to work in care.

People we spoke with and their relatives consistently told us that staff were caring and that they were happy with the care provided. During our observations we saw staff were friendly, engaging and knew people very well. Staff talked with people about their hobbies, plans for the day and their families. One person owned a dog who meant a lot to them. Plans had been put in place for staff to ensure the dog was well cared for so it could continue to live with it's owner. Relatives told us they felt welcome at the home, the registered manager had facilitated a monthly relatives meeting, which was so well received it was now organised by the family members themselves. Relatives were regularly invited to social activities including a twice weekly pub night, which often included karaoke songs from people who used the service and relatives.

Care was person-centred. People's needs had been assessed and care had been planned to meet those needs. Assessments and information about people's life histories were very personalised and in-depth. We noted the level of detail of some care plans was varied, however staff we spoke with were very knowledgeable about people and the care they required.

A range of activities were available for people to take part in, both in groups and individually. People were supported to maintain the hobbies and try new things. The households were filled with interesting objects to enable people to engage in meaningful activity, either with staff of independently. One person who used the service was helped by staff to produce a gardening newsletter. People and their relatives were aware of the complaints procedure. We saw complaints had been responded to in line with the provider's policy. Compliments records showed the home had received a large number of cards and letters praising the service from relatives and professionals involved with the service.

The provider's operational manager and registered manager were passionate about the culture of the home and their commitment to providing loving, family orientated care. Staff we spoke reiterated in their own words the aims of the service and the standard of care which the home provided. It was clear from staff conversations of a common goal and pride in what the home achieved. People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and the provider and told us the service was well run.

The provider's quality assurance system was in-depth and covered a range of checks and audits to ensure standards at the service were being maintained and improved. Representatives from the provider visited the home regularly to provide feedback on the service and to highlight any areas for improvement. Identified actions were monitored to ensure they were carried out. The registered manager told us about the informal ways in which she promoted the model of care used within the service. We saw information about positive and negative language and interactions were displayed on the wall of her office to enable staff discussion and promote care which enriched people's lives at all times.

The home had links with the local community and other care organisations. Interested parties from other care homes had visited the home to view the model of care in practice.

The provider had not sent us notifications of safeguarding incidents which are a legal requirement of their registration. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they were unaware of this requirement. They advised us they would update their policy to ensure future incidents we were promptly notified of future incidents.