- Homecare service
Eskdale House Supported Living Service
We served a warning notice on Westmorland and Furness Council on 11 May 2026 for failing to comply with Regulation 17 (1), (2) a, b, c, f, Good Governance, at Eskdale House Supported Living Service.
Assessment report published 3 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 16 April to 05 May 2026. Eskdale House Supported Living Service supports people who have a learning disability, physical disability or mental health needs. Support is provided through the provision of supported living services. At the time of the assessment the service provided regulated support to 8 people in 8 separate flats.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. This guidance supported judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and access to local communities that most people take for granted.
We assessed the quality statements from the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
The provider had recently acquired the service from another provider. Stakeholder feedback indicated people’s care had improved since Westmorland and Furness council took over the service. However, we found issues with how the service managed people’s risks, medicines, and incidents occurring at the service. The service had not sought people’s consent about the use of closed-circuit television (CCTV). Systems in place to assess and manage the quality and safety of the service were not always effective. Therefore, the provider was in breach of the legal regulations safe care and treatment, need for consent and good governance.
The service had systems to manage and respond to incidents however this did not always lead to effective action or learning. Processes to manage people’s transition between services were not always effective. The service had not sought sufficient assurances about the safety of the premises and could not evidence all staff, where required, had received the appropriate fire safety training. The service could not evidence people were receiving the correct amount of support from fully trained staff. However, processes to manage risks associated with the spread of infection, were mostlyeffective.
People’s assessments did not always include up to date, consistent information about people’s needs. People’s care was not always delivered in line with national standards or evidence-based good practice guidance. There were inconsistencies with how people’s needs and risks were monitored and how their outcomes were recorded. However, people were referred to health and social care partners for specialist support, where required. The service worked well across teams and services to support people.
Staff interacted with people with kindness and respect and appreciated their individuality. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff enjoyed working for the service and spoke warmly about the management team and how supportive they were. However, support around pursuing person centred interests and activities was not always consistent due to staffing constraints.
People and their relatives felt involved in their care planning where required. Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices and learning disability and autism services. Staff knew and met people’s communication needs and provided information in appropriate formats. People could access care and treatment when they needed it. Staff endeavoured to prevent or minimise the inequality in experience or outcomes for people. However, the service had not yet begun to ask people, relatives and staff about their views of the service. People’s care plans did not always include their aspirations and goals and how staff would support them to meet these.
The service was in the process of instilling a shared vision, strategy and culture for the service. However, further improvements were required to ensure this was fully implemented. While leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, further support was required at provider level to ensure governance of the service was effective. The service had an inconsistent approach to continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. However, staff felt able to report concerns and were confident the management team would act on issues. Staff felt they were treated equitably and had an inclusive culture; and that they were part of a positive community working to provide good support for people.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
People's experience of this service
People and their loved ones felt they were receiving better care since Westmorland and Furness Council took over the service. However, they also appreciated it would take time for the service to fully embed improvements.
They told us they were supported by staff who were caring and friendly although there were issues with language barriers at times. One relative told us, “Some support staff engage with [person] really well, while others struggle to interact.” Another relative told us, “Staff have been really supportive and are working with [person] to increase their confidence.” Another relative told us, “Staff tend to treat [person] with kindness and respect.”
People felt safe and this was echoed by their loved ones. One person told us, “I feel safe. Things are getting done much better now.” One relative told us, “Things have improved drastically for [person] and I put that down to them feeling safe now.”
People’s loved ones told us staff promoted their independence and their choices were respected, however they could not always participate in or follow their interests fully due to issues with staff provision. One relative told us, “Things are improving but now there needs to be the focus on activities. We don’t know how many staff hours [person] is supposed to have.”
Throughout the assessment we observed care and support that was caring, friendly and responsive to people’s needs. Staff were respectful and took time to involve people in their care and gain their consent around every-day decisions and offer choices.