You are here

Eastgate Residential Home Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection at Eastgate Residential Home on 30 April 2018. This was the first ratings inspection since the provider had registered with us in March 2017.

Eastgate Residential Home 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.

Eastgate Residential Home accommodates a maximum of 11 people. The service contains four flats, each of which have separate adapted facilities and seven additional bedrooms with en-suite facilities. At the time of the inspection there were seven people using the service on a permanent basis and two people were using the service on a temporary respite/assessment basis.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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 received safe care and we found there were enough staff to provide support to people that met their needs. We found that people were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their medicines safely. The provider had safe recruitment procedures in place to ensure that staff were of a good character and suitable to support people who used the service. People were protected from infection and cross contamination risks.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent before they carried out support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People’s nutritional needs were met by staff. People were able to choose what they wanted to eat and drink. People had access to health care services and advice sought was followed by staff to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained. Staff received training to enable them to support people effectively. The environment was adapted in a way that met people’s needs.

People were treated with dignity and staff were caring and kind. People’s privacy was respected an upheld, people were able to have time to themselves in their private rooms. Staff encouraged people’s independence and respected people’s choices. Staff understood people’s individual communication needs and relationships with relatives were maintained.

People were supported with interests and hobbies that were important to them. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Staff knew people well, which meant people were supported in line with their preferences. People understood how to complain if they needed to because complaints procedures were in a format that people understood. Plans were in place to gain people’s views of how they wanted to be supported at the end of their life.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service. The registered manager was approachable and supportive to both people and staff.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff knew people�s risks and supported them to remain as independent as possible whilst protecting their safety. There were enough suitably recruited staff available to meet people�s needs. Medicines were managed safely and infection control measures were in place to protect people from potential infection risks. Systems were in place to ensure that improvements were made when issues had been identified.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported to consent to their care and where systems were in place to ensure that decisions were made in people�s best interests and in the least restrictive way. People enjoyed the food and were supported with their nutritional needs.

People received support from staff who were sufficiently trained. People�s health was monitored and health professionals� input was sought and followed where needed.

People were involved in the decoration of the service and the environment was designed and adapted to promote people�s safety, independence and social inclusion. There were systems in place to ensure that people received consistent care from staff and external services.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and showed patience and compassion when they supported people. Staff treated people dignity and respect and their rights to privacy were upheld. People were supported to make choices in the way their care was provided. Staff understood people�s individual way of communicating and people were supported to maintain links with friends and family.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People accessed the community with support and were able to participate in hobbies and interests that met their preferences. People�s preferences in the way they received their care were respected by staff.

People�s care was reviewed and updated to ensure they received care that met their changing needs. People knew how to make a complaint and the complaints procedure was available to people in a format they were able to understand. The registered manager was in the process of gaining information from people and/or their relatives about their end of life wishes.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was well led.

People, relatives and staff felt able to approach the registered manager. People and staff had been asked for feedback which informed service delivery. Staff felt supported in their role.

There were systems in place to monitor and manage the service. The registered manager and provider had a clear overview of the service. The registered manager worked in partnership with other agencies to make improvements to the way people received their care and they understood their responsibilities of their registration.