You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 17 May 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 15 and 20 February 2018. The first day was unannounced. It was our first inspection of the service under its current registration, the registration having changed when the service changed ownership.

Eilat 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. Eilat accommodates up to six people in one building; there were six people living there during the inspection. People’s rooms are on the ground, first and second floors. There are no lifts. There is a small parking area at the front of the building.

Eilat specialises in supporting people who have experienced a head injury or neurological condition that has affected their mental health.

The service has a registered manager, as required under its conditions of registration with CQC. 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.

People at Eilat had complex and continuing health needs; staff sought to improve their care, and support by identifying and implementing best practice. The service had expertise in brain injury. People received effective support that enabled their rehabilitation, for example, improved cognitive processing and communication and increased independence. People had achieved better outcomes than had been anticipated when they moved to the service.

There were strong links with health and social care services. Professionals praised the way the service liaised with them and acted on their advice, leading to improved outcomes for people. We saw this in operation during the inspection.

People were actively involved, as far as possible, in managing their health and making decisions about it. This had enabled them to have an improved quality of life. Some people lacked insight into their condition but even so staff worked with them to build trust and involve them in decisions.

People’s independence was promoted and they received care and support tailored to their individual needs. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

Staff treated people with respect and upheld their privacy and dignity.

People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities and education. They used community facilities and got the support they needed to go out and about.

Where people had difficulties with communication, staff were aware of their communication needs and supported them accordingly.

People were encouraged and supported to maintain relationships with people who mattered to them.

People’s rights were protected by staff who following the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff supported people to make their own decisions, and people’s consent was sought to their care and support. Where there were concerns about people’s ability to understand what they would be consenting to, staff assessed their mental capacity to give consent. Where they were found to lack capacity, staff provided the least restrictive care possible in people’s best interests.

People had their own individual menu plans. Staff supported each person to shop for and prepare their own meals and snacks. Healthy choices were encouraged, but people’s preferences were respected.

People were protected from abuse, neglect, avoidable harm and the spread of infection.

Medicines were managed safely.

The premises had a homely feel. They were kept clean and were well maintained.

Accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated and learnt from to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence.

There were sufficient staff on duty to provide the su

Inspection areas



Updated 17 May 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse, discrimination and avoidable harm.

Risks were managed for each person in the least restrictive way possible.

There were enough staff on duty to support people in the way they needed.



Updated 17 May 2018

The service was highly effective.

People and visitors gave very positive feedback about the service.

There were strong links with health and social care services. People were actively encouraged to make choices about their health and how it should be monitored and managed.

People had complex and continuing health needs. The service sought constantly to review and improve their care and treatment. This supported people to achieve outstanding outcomes.



Updated 17 May 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness.

People�s privacy was maintained.

Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals



Updated 17 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People, and where appropriate, their relatives, were involved as much as possible in decisions about their care and support.

People were encouraged to maintain hobbies, interests and relationships with people who mattered to them.

People felt confident to give feedback about their care and support, and had regular opportunities to do so. People and relatives were confident that if they made a complaint, this would be taken seriously.



Updated 17 May 2018

The service was well led.

People, relatives and professionals were confident in the leadership of the service. Staff morale was good.

The culture of the service was positive, open and person-centred. The registered manager and provider welcomed and acted on feedback.

There was a focus on quality assurance and learning. Lessons learned from incidents, accidents, complaints and safeguarding were shared and acted upon.