You are here

Evergreen Court Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 15 January 2019

This inspection took place on 10 December 2018. The inspection was unannounced, which meant that the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Evergreen Court is a purpose-built care home located in central Middlesbrough. It is a single-story building providing care and accommodation for up to 17 people assessed as requiring residential care. This includes support for people living with a dementia type illness.

Evergreen Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At time of our inspection there were 15 people living at Evergreen Court.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

At our previous inspection in February 2017 the service was rated as good. At this inspection the service was rated requires improvement.

At this inspection we found some issues with medicine management. For example, applications of creams to people were not recorded and out of date eye drops were being used. The provider took immediate action to address the issues we raised.

Recruitment practices helped ensure that suitable staff were employed however we did identify some gaps in records. Pre-employment checks were made to reduce the likelihood of the service employing staff who were unsuitable to work with vulnerable people.

Policies and procedures were in place to help staff protect people from harm, such as safeguarding and whistleblowing polices. Staff knew how to identify and report suspected abuse. The people we spoke with during this inspection told us they felt the service was safe.

Staff and most people told us staffing levels were sufficient. We received mixed feedback from families about staffing levels.

People’s care files contained the information staff needed to support them. Risks to people had been assessed and reviewed. Information was available for staff in how to best manage these risks. Environmental risk assessments were in place covering tasks undertaken by staff. Staff said that they were supported by the management team including through regular supervision meetings.

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. The policies and practices of the service helped to ensure that everyone was treated equally.

People had access to and the provider worked with a range of healthcare services such as GPs, occupational therapists and opticians. People’s nutritional needs were met.

The premises were clean and tidy. Staff knew how to help control the spread of infection. Equipment and building checks were undertaken to help ensure the environment was safe. Emergency contingency plans were in place.

People were supported by a regular team of staff who were knowledgeable about their likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff members were respectful and kind towards people. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Staff encouraged people to access a range of activities.

End of life care procedures were in place which recognised the needs of people and their relatives at this important time.

Feedback was sought to monitor and improve the service. Meetings for people, relatives and staff took place. Learning took place following reviews of accidents and incidents where themes and trends were addressed. A clear complaints policy and procedure was in place and followed by the provider.

Quality assurance systems w

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 15 January 2019

The service was not always safe.

Medicines were not always managed safely.

There were some gaps in recruitment records.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding people and were knowledgeable about the potential signs of abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 January 2019

The service was effective.

Staff had the training they required to meet the needs of people they were supporting.

Consent was sought from people before tasks were undertaken.

Care plans included information for staff about how to support people as individuals.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 January 2019

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us staff were very caring.

Staff were kind and patient in their interactions with people.

People’s independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 January 2019

The service was responsive.

A range of activities were on offer to people living at the service.

People knew how to complain if they needed to.

End of life policies and procedures were in place.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 15 January 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Quality assurance systems were in place however these had not identified the issues we found with medicines and some records during this inspection.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to meet people's needs.