You are here

Eastrop House and Lodge Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 December 2017

Eastrop House provides accommodation and personal care to a maximum of eight people who live with a learning disability and autism and/or associated health needs, who may experience behaviours that challenge staff. At the time of inspection four people were living at the home, one of whom had recently been admitted to hospital for treatment of their health needs.

This inspection took place on 9 and 10 October 2017. The inspection was unannounced, this meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

The service had a registered manager who was on annual leave but came in voluntarily to support the inspection process. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The deputy manager had been providing management cover to the home whilst the registered manager was on leave.

People were kept safe from harm and staff knew what to do in order to maintain their safety. Risks to people had been assessed and action was taken to minimise potential risks. Medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed. Arrangements were in place to receive, record, store and handle medicines safely and securely.

The provider operated thorough recruitment procedures to ensure staff were safe to work with the people. The registered manager had assessed the required staffing levels to meet people’s needs to be greater than those commissioned and ensured the assessed staffing levels were deployed.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and training to meet their needs. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were involved in making every day decisions and choices about how they wanted to live their lives and were supported by staff in the least restrictive way possible.

People were supported to have a healthy balanced diet and had access to the food and drink of their choice, when they wanted it. The physical environment was personalised to meet people's individual needs.

People were supported by regular staff who were kind and caring. People felt comfortable with staff and sought their company. There was a warm and positive atmosphere within the service where people were relaxed and reassured by the presence of staff.

People's independence was promoted by staff who encouraged them to do as much for themselves as possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs regarding equality, diversity and their human rights.

People were encouraged and enabled to be involved as much as possible in making decisions about how their support needs were met. Visitors were made to feel welcome and people were enabled to have contact with their family and those who were important to them.

The service was responsive and involved people in developing their support plans which were detailed and personalised to ensure their individual preferences were known. People were supported to take part in activities that they enjoyed.

Arrangements were in place to obtain the views of people and their relatives and a complaints procedure was available for people and their relatives to use if they had the need.

The service was well led. There was a clear management structure in place and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

In their efforts to work with the commissioners of care to accommodate people in crisis situations the provider had not always been able to complete effective transition planning which had led to one person being inappropriately placed. The provider has implemented new processes to ensure there is no future recurrence.

The safety and quality of support people received was effectively monitored

Inspection areas



Updated 13 December 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse because staff had been trained and understood the actions required to keep people safe.

Risks specific to each person had been identified, assessed, and actions implemented to protect them.

The registered manager had provided higher ratios of suitably qualified staff to support people than those commissioned to ensure people, staff and others were safe.

People received their medicines safely, as prescribed from staff who had completed relevant training and had their competency to administer medicines assessed regularly.



Updated 13 December 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the required skills and knowledge to provide the support people needed.

Staff constantly sought people�s consent about their daily care and allowed them time to consider their decisions, in accordance with their support plan.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and were encouraged to maintain a balanced, healthy diet.

People were supported to stay healthy by staff who were aware of their health needs and quickly made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals when they were unwell. Records showed that people had regular access to healthcare professionals.



Updated 13 December 2017

The service was caring.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and treated them with dignity and respect.

Staff promoted people�s independence and understood the importance of respecting people�s choices and their privacy.

People were encouraged to maintain important relationships to prevent social isolation.



Updated 13 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.

People knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint and were confident the registered manager would take prompt action to deal with them.

The registered manager used feedback, concerns and complaints as an opportunity to learn and improve the quality of the service provided.



Updated 13 December 2017

The service was well-led.

The management team promoted an open, inclusive, and person centred culture which encouraged people and staff to be actively involved in developing the service.

The registered manager provided clear and direct leadership visible at all levels which inspired staff to provide a quality service.

The registered manager effectively operated quality assurance and governance systems to drive continuous improvement in the service.