Archived: Eton Park Care Centre

Updated 18 August 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection was carried out on the 29 June 2017 by one inspector, a specialist advisor, who was a nurse and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed information that we held about the service such as notifications, which are events which happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about, and information that had been sent to us by other agencies. This included the local authority who commissioned services from the provider.

During the inspection we spoke with eight people living at the home, three relatives, the cook, four members of the care staff, two nurses, the deputy manager, the manager and a representative of the provider.

We looked at care records relating to six people living at the home as well as medicine records for others. We reviewed other records relevant to the running of the service such as, staff recruitment records, quality assurance audits, training information for care staff, staff duty rotas, meeting minutes and arrangements for managing complaints.

Updated 18 August 2017

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 29 June 2017. Eton Park Care Centre provides accommodation for persons who require personal care or nursing, for up to a maximum of 76 people. On the day of our inspection 45 people were using the service. Care was provided on residential and nursing floors as well as a dementia unit.

On the day of our inspection there was not a registered manager in place, however an application had been submitted for the new home manager to be registered. 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 will continue to monitor application process and will address any delays with the provider.

Staffing numbers on the day of the inspection exceeded those required on the provider’s internal dependency assessment. Howver, people, relatives and staff raised concerns about the number of staff working at the home. Staff could identify the potential signs of abuse people could face; however only some knew what external agencies any concerns could be reported to. People’s medicines were managed safely; however people’s preferred way to receive their medicines was not always recorded within their records. People’s medicine administration records were not always correctly completed. Risks to people’s safety were continually assessed.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, had been followed when decisions were made about people’s care.

People were supported by staff who completed an induction prior to commencing their role. However, some training was not currently up to date. Staff received supervision of their role, although the frequency, in which staff received this, was inconsistent. Staff felt supported by the deputy manager and the manager.

People were supported to maintain good health in relation to their food and drink. However, the serving of the lunchtime meal was disorganised, with some people waiting too long for their meal and a drink, which did not promote a positive mealtime experience. People’s day to day health needs were met by staff and referrals to relevant health services were made where needed.

People and relatives spoke positively about the staff and felt they were kind and caring and supported them or their family member in a respectful and dignified way. Staff responded quickly to people when they showed signs of distress or had become upset, showing genuine warmth and compassion. Staff understood people’s needs and listened to and acted upon their views. People felt able to contribute to decisions about their care, although people’s care records did not always reflect this. People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates. People’s privacy was maintained and respected. People’s friends and relatives were able to visit whenever they wanted to.

People were encouraged to take part in activities. The majority of relatives felt there was enough stimulation for their family members. Before people came to live at the home assessments had been carried out to determine whether their needs could be met. This, in majority of cases led to timely detailed care plans being put in place. The care people received was provided in line with their care plans, although a small number of examples were identified where improvements in this area were needed. People living at the home had person centred care plans in place that recorded their preferences and likes and dislikes. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s preferences.

People were provided with the information they needed if they wished to make a complaint and they felt their complaint would be acted on.

The new manager had started to identify and act on areas that required improvement within the home. Quality assurance processes were in place, with roles delegated to senior staff to manage on-going improvements to the home. The manager was well-liked by the people, relatives and staff we spoke, although some people said they would like see more of the manager. People were encouraged to provide feedback about the quality of the service, although formal meetings were rare.