You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

An unannounced inspection took place on 24 &25 April 2018.

At the previous inspection in April 2017 we found that the provider was in breach of 2014 Regulations with regard poor recording practices for medication administration and storage of medicines and the lack of a governance system in place to assess the quality and effectiveness of the service provided. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

Eldonian House Care Centre 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.

Eldonian House Care Centre accommodates 30 people living with dementia in one adapted building. Accommodation includes all single bedrooms with ensuite facilities, two main lounges and a dining room. There are two outdoor enclosed areas for people to enjoy.

There is a registered manager at the home. 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.

We found that medicines were administered and managed safely in the home. Regular stock checks and weekly medication audits were now completed. A Medication Administration Record (MAR) file was in place to guide for staff for safe administration of medication. For each person there was a photograph with details such as name, date of birth, any allergies, their GP and any medical conditions. All staff that administered medication received medicines administration training and competency checks were completed every year.

The registered provider had put a number of checks and audits in place since our last inspection which were used to improve the quality of care provided.

There was a sufficient number of suitably trained and qualified staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home. Staff were supported regularly through supervision meetings, annual appraisals and staff meetings, which were held every three months

The staff presented as caring, kind and knowledgeable about people's needs.

Safeguarding systems processes and practices helped staff to understand how to protect people from abuse, neglect, harassment and breaches of their dignity and respect. Risk assessments were undertaken to support people safely and in accordance with their individual needs. They were updated each month to reflect any changes in people's needs monthly to ensure they received the appropriate care and support.

The home was odour free, clean and kept hygienic. Personal protective equipment (PPE) such as aprons and gloves were available and used when supporting people with personal care and administering medication.

A four week menu was in place and people were offered nutritious meals. People told us the food was good. People's nutritional needs were assessed and recorded. Food allergies, likes/dislikes and requirements were recorded. Staff monitored people's dietary intake and weight.

The environment and equipment was well maintained and subject to service contracts and safety checks.

Staff sought advice from external health and social care professionals at the appropriate time. This ensured people's health was monitored effectively.

Care staff respected and promoted people's privacy, dignity and independence. They were caring and compassionate in their approach and encouraged people to express their views.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Managers and staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act and ensured that people received the right kind of assistance to support them in making decisions.

Activities were provided regularly for people, such as games, craft

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was safe.

We found systems in place to manage medicines were safe.

Risks to people's safety were assessed and control measures were in place to help ensure their safety.

Environmental hazards were identified and measures taken to ensure people lived in a safe comfortable environment.

Staff had been checked when they were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

There were enough staff on duty to ensure people's care needs were consistently met.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was effective.

Managers and staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act and ensured that people received the right kind of assistance to support them to make decisions.

Healthcare professionals were involved in people's care.

People enjoyed a varied diet which met their dietary needs and preferences.

Staff were supported through induction, regular on-going training, supervision and appraisal.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was caring.

.

Staff were kind, caring and caring and compassionate.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.

People had access to social activities including trips into the local community.

People's concerns and complaints listened and responded to and used to improve the quality of care.

Staff were aware of the need to support people approaching the end of their life and care planning arrangements were person centred to ensure their wishes and needs were respected.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was well led.

Systems and process were robust and effective in monitoring the service and driving forward improvements.

Staff sought feedback from people and relatives to gain their views about the home.

There was a registered manager in post and feedback regarding the leadership and management of the service was positive.