We carried out a review of the data available to us about Eagle House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Eagle House, you can give feedback on this service.
Eagle House is a care home for people who require nursing or personal care. The home predominantly provides care and accommodation for people who have enduring mental health needs or people who require nursing care. Accommodation and nursing care is provided for up to 30 people in the main building, across two floors. There are also 4 bungalows adjacent to the main building for people who are more independent. Each bungalow can accommodate up to 4 people. At the time of our inspection there were 46 people living at Eagle House.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Since our last inspection the provider had made improvements to records of the food and fluid consumed by people, the décor of the home, the caring attitude of staff and good governance.
People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. The home was clean, and people were protected from the risk and spread of infections. There were enough staff available to assist people to meet their needs in a timely way.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to identify any trends or patterns. This helped to mitigate future risks and ensured lessons were learned. The provider had a safe recruitment process which assisted them in recruiting suitable staff. Risks in relation to people's care were identified and detailed information about how risks could be mitigated. We have made a recommendation about the risk assessment for use of one piece of equipment. The provider has already acted to meet this recommendation.
A training plan evidenced staff had received appropriate training to carry out their roles effectively. Competency assessments were also in place for things such as medicine administration.
People's needs were assessed, and care delivered in line with best practice. Care plans and supporting documentation included people's individual choices and preferences. We observed lunch being served and found people were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet which included their preferences.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Throughout the inspection we observed staff interacting with people in a caring and considerate way. We saw staff gaining people's consent prior to carrying out care tasks. People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support they received.
The management team carried out regular audits to ensure the quality of the service was maintained. The management team took appropriate actions to address any issues. People and their relatives had confidence in the management team and felt they were approachable.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 9 January 2020).
The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.
At this inspection we found the provider had made improvements. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. This inspection was also carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Eagle House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Eagle House is a care home for people who require nursing or personal care. The home predominantly provides care and accommodation for people who have enduring mental health needs or people who require nursing care. Accommodation and nursing care is provided for up to 30 people in the main building, across two floors. There are also four bungalows adjacent to the main building for people who are more independent. Each bungalow can accommodate up to four people. At the time of our inspection there were 42 people living at Eagle House.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Since the last inspection improvements had been made to the safety and quality of the care people received. The staff team had received regular training and increased supervision from managers, to support them to deliver effective care. Staff had started to work together as a team and most staff told us they thought the service had improved. Additional care staff, nurses and a clinical lead had been recruited and inducted, which had brought some stability to the service.
People’s needs and preferences were known by staff and this led to people receiving personalised care. However, we received mixed feedback from people about the staff team. People told us some staff were “marvellous” and “kind and caring”, whereas they thought other staff were not very caring. People had raised their concerns about some staff members with the provider. The provider was acting on this feedback. People were able to raise any complaints about the service and they were acted on appropriately.
We found examples of good practice where staff had worked alongside people living at Eagle House and other health professionals to improve the management of people’s health. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People felt safe. Risks to people were assessed and risk reduction measures were implemented, to reduce the risk of avoidable harm to people. The provider’s oversight of the service had improved, which led to increased safety for people living at Eagle House. However, some aspects of the provider’s systems used to monitor the quality and safety of the service required further improvements.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection (and update)
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 19 December 2018). We identified multiple breaches of regulation at the last inspection. The provider completed an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve.
At this inspection we found the provider had made some improvements and were no longer in breach of regulations in respect of staffing and person-centred care. However, we found further improvements were needed to the provider’s governance and audit system and they remained in breach of regulation in this area.
The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last three consecutive inspections.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Enforcement
We identified a breach of regulation in respect of good governance. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Eagle House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Eagle House is registered to provide accommodation for people who require nursing or personal care. The service can accommodate 46 people and predominantly provides care and accommodation for people who have enduring mental health needs or require nursing care. Accommodation and nursing care is provided over two floors in the main building. There are also four bungalows for people who are more independent. Each bungalow can accommodate up to four people. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people living at Eagle House.
Our last inspection of Eagle House took place on 13 November 2017. We rated the service requires improvement and we found there were two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. There was a breach of Regulation 9; person-centred care because people’s care records did not always accurately reflect their needs and staff did not adequately document the support they provided to meet people’s needs. There was a breach of Regulation 17; good governance because the provider had not acted upon feedback provided by stakeholders to drive improvements to the service and the provider’s own audits were not always effective in identifying issues which needed to be acted upon.
Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the service to at least good. Although the service had started to make some improvements since the last inspection, at this inspection we found the service continued to be in breach of Regulations 9 and 17. We also identified a breach of Regulation 18; staffing.
There was a registered manager employed at Eagle House. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.
People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. Staff knew people living at Eagle House very well. People told us staff responded promptly when they needed support, however, some staff told us they felt more staff were needed on each shift.
The provider had failed to ensure staff received appropriate training, supervision and support to enable them to carry out their role effectively. The provider had not taken adequate steps to ensure staff were up to date with their training and staff did not receive regular supervision. The provider’s recruitment procedures required improvement, to ensure staff employed were thoroughly assessed as suitable to work at the service.
People told us they felt safe at Eagle House and people’s relatives raised no concerns about their family member’s safety. However, the risks involved in receiving and delivering care were not consistently assessed and kept under review.
Staff understood what it meant to protect people from abuse. They knew how to report unsafe practice. Staff were required to complete safeguarding vulnerable adults training however, at the time of this inspection, not all staff were up to date with this training.
Medicines were stored safely and securely, and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.
People told us they enjoyed the food served at Eagle House. The cook was flexible and accommodating and considered people’s dietary needs and preferences.
People's care needs were not always accurately assessed and some people’s care records needed updating to help promote the delivery of person-centred care. We saw plans were in place to improve care records.
Some people had not received appropriate care to meet their personal care and hygiene needs.
Staff were required to complete training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, however most staff were not up to date with this training. We observed staff support people to make decisions about their care and they obtained people’s consent to care and support throughout the day of this inspection. The provider's policies and systems supported this practice.
The provider had a complaints procedure in place. People told us they were confident in reporting any concerns to staff and the registered manager.
The provider had employed an activities coordinator since the last inspection. We observed various activities taking place during the inspection which people enjoyed. The activities coordinator supported people to participate in a range of activities, both in groups and on an individual basis.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to infection control and most areas of the building were clean, however, some areas needed to be checked more frequently. We have made a recommendation about cleaning schedules.
The provider had various quality assurance and audit systems in place to monitor and improve service delivery. Some of these audits were effective at driving improvements to the service, however, others did not ensure satisfactory actions were taken. Some key areas of the service were not audited or reviewed.
The registered manager had recently started using satisfaction surveys to obtain feedback from people using the service, however, this system was not yet embedded.
The provider did not always act on feedback about the service from stakeholders such as the local clinical commissioning group and local council.
This is the second consecutive time the service has been rated requires improvement. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
This was the service’s first inspection since their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in September 2016.
Eagle House 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. Eagle House is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The service can accommodate a maximum of 46 people and offers accommodation for adults aged 55 onwards. The service works with people who have enduring mental health needs or learning disability. The service is divided into residential support with self-catering accommodation or nursing. The residential support is situated in four bungalows. Each bungalow can accommodate up to four people at any one time. At the time of our inspection there were 43 people living at the service.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with the CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the registered provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
People we spoke with were mostly positive about their experience of living at Eagle House. They told us they felt safe and were respected.
Staff were provided with relevant training which gave them the skills they needed to undertake their role. We found that some staff were not receiving supervision and appraisal at the frequency stated in the registered provider’s own policy and procedures.
During the inspection we saw staff responded appropriately and saw there we sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. However, people who used the service told us there were not sufficient numbers of staff deployed at the weekend.
We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely so their health needs were met. However, we saw the guidelines in place to help staff administer medicines prescribed ‘as required’ needed to be more detailed to support people consistently and safely.
Staff recruitment procedures were in place. The registered provider ensured pre-employment checks were carried out prior to new staff commencing employment to make sure they were safe to employ.
People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
A programme of activities was in place. However, we observed people living at the service not joining in with activities and were not provided with social stimulation, which was based on their preferences. The registered provider told us they appointed a new activities coordinator who was due to start working at the service.
We saw policies in place to treat people with dignity and respect. We found improvements were needed to practices to promote people’s dignity who lived at the service.
People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied diet was provided, which took into account individual dietary needs and preferences. This meant people’s health was promoted and choices could be respected.
People said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.
There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to. Issues were not always being identified in audits and provider visits were not being recorded.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.