Eldonian House Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider and leaders encouraged transparency and openness about safety. Staff understood their responsibility to raise concerns and report incidents. Opportunities to learn from safety events were communicated to staff to help support improvement and prevent recurrence. A member of staff confirmed, “We are one when things go wrong and do what we can do to move forward and learn from there.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Processes were in place to help ensure that when people moved between services, key information about the person was included to help ensure continuity of care was met. For example, processes were followed to ensure relevant information was gathered and shared when people were admitted to, or discharged from, the home.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. A member of staff told us, “If we saw anything was wrong, we would raise a safeguarding.” Policies were in place to help ensure people’s safety, such as a whistleblowing and safeguarding policy. Any accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately with suitable actions taken in response to help reduce the risk of recurrence. Staff understood risks regarding abuse/and or person safety and were able to explain how they would report a safeguarding concern. People and their relatives told us they felt Eldonian House was a safe place to live. One person told us, “I am happy here and feel safe.” Relatives confirmed, “Dad is completely safe and happy” and “I can go home and not have to worry or have any concerns about [Name’s] care.”

For people who had DoLs in place, we saw they had been appropriately applied for and were reviewed in line with best practice or when needed.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks were appropriately identified, information on how to manage risks was available to staff meaning people received the care and support they required to minimise risks adequately.

Many staff had worked at the home for a long time and were familiar with the risks to people and how to manage them safely.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Signage was used throughout the home to help people living with a cognitive impairment to better navigate the home. People had access to an enclosed garden and courtyard area, which contained raised flower beds where people could enjoy planting seeds and plants. Processes were in place to help ensure the safety of the environment. For example, risk assessments and regular checks of the environment were carried out to ensure the safety and well-being of both people and staff. However, there were some gaps in the recording of these checks. We spoke to the registered manager about this who confirmed there was a new maintenance person who was getting used to the paperwork, but moving forward checks would be recorded appropriately, and in full. We observed some vanity units in people’s en-suites were worn with some damage to the edges, the registered manager told us plans were in place to replace these units.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff had been recruited safely and there were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs. For example, we observed a greater staff presence in areas where people required assistance with their mobility needs. Staff had received training and support to help them carry out their roles. A member of staff told us, “I have all the training I need.” All staff had completed dementia training including domestic staff and chef, so everyone in the building understood the specific needs of people living with dementia and were better equipped to meet those needs. A visiting health professional told us, “They [Staff] understand dementia well and are sensible and pragmatic in their decision making.” Staff had been given the time to get to know people and had built up meaningful and positive relationships with them.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff were suitably trained in IPC (Infection, prevention and control) practices and the home had sufficient stocks of PPE (Personal protective equipment). One person told us, “The home is kept very clean and my room is lovely with all my bits and bobs.” A family member confirmed, “[Name’s] room is spotless and everywhere is kept clean.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. For people who were prescribed PRN (as and when required medicines), PRN protocols required additional person-centred information to help guide staff on when to administer such medicines. We spoke to the registered manager about this who confirmed this information would be added immediately. However, we were assured people were given these medicines appropriately, as staff knew people well enough to know when these medicines were required. We saw some positive examples of effective medicines management. For 1 person who was on a covert medicines plan in their former home, staff had built up trust with the person and fully involved them with decision making, so the person was now able to take their medicines with minimal assistance from staff.