We carried out a review of the data available to us about EagleCrest 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 EagleCrest, you can give feedback on this service.
EagleCrest is a domiciliary care service. The service is registered to provide care and support for older people and younger adults who may live with dementia or physical impairments.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection EagleCrest was providing personal care to two people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
At our previous inspection we found areas of improvement were required. This was in relation to people’s being involved in shaping their care according to their wishes and overall governance. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made. Additional governance systems had been introduced to help improve the quality of care and support provided. We found these systems were in place, although some were still being embedded into daily practice.
People felt safe with the care provided to them. Risks associated with care and the environment were identified and assessed. There were enough staff to meet people's needs in a consistent and flexible way. Staff protected people from avoidable harm, were knowledgeable about safeguarding and felt able to raise concerns. Systems were in place to recruit staff safely. Staff administered people’s medicines when needed and managed them in a safe manner.
Staff received support to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. New staff received an induction and shadowed the management team as part of this. Systems were in place to ensure information to support people was shared and discussed appropriately with health professionals, where necessary.
Consent to care was sought and staff understood people's rights to make their own decisions. 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 told us staff were kind and caring. They had built meaningful relationships with staff and felt they mattered and were listened to. Staff were aware of the importance of promoting people's dignity and maintaining their privacy.
People's needs were assessed before they began to use the service and care plans were developed from this information. Care plans overall, contained information for staff to support people according to their needs. People and their relative said they would be confident to raise concerns with the management team.
The provider had further developed governance systems which enabled them to have improved oversight of all aspects of the service, although some further development was required. People, their relatives and staff members spoke highly of the registered manager and told us that they were always available and supportive. People were involved in the service development and staff felt able to raise their own views and opinions.
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 16 November 2018). At this inspection we some found improvements had been made.
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The inspection was announced and was undertaken by two inspectors.
EagleCrest is a domiciliary care service which provides care and support to people living in their own homes in the community. This assists them to live as independently as possible. At the time of this inspection, three people were being supported by the service. Not everyone using EagleCrest received regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
People were supported by staff who had received training on how to keep people safe from potential harm. Risks were assessed and measures put in place to help reduce the risk of avoidable harm.
Pre-employment checks were completed, however where potential candidates had gaps in their employment history these were not fully explored. Other checks included obtaining a disclosure and barring check (DBS) and taking up of a minimum of two references. Potential staff were required to provide proof of their identity and checking other documentation to check they were of good character and suited to work in this type of service. There were sufficient staff to ensure people’s needs were met safely.
Medicines were managed safely by trained and competent staff. However, at the time of our inspection people were only being reminded to take their medicines by staff. The provider had effective procedures in place to help prevent and control the spread of infections.
The registered manager told us no accidents or incidents had occurred since the service registered so we were unable to assess any potential learning from such events.
People's needs were assessed and met effectively by staff who had the right training, skills and support. People were encouraged to eat and drink a balanced diet to help them remain healthy. People had access a range of healthcare services when needed.
People and where appropriate their relatives were asked to consent to their care plan. However, this was an area that needed development. The registered manager was seeking additional support to help them understand and implement how the service had to apply the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and showed compassion. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. Staff encouraged people to make choices about things that were important to them. People were involved in the review of their care plans. However, there was little detail about people`s likes, dislikes and preferences in care plans.
There was a process in place to receive and manage complaints and compliments. Although the registered manager told us that no complaints had been received since the service registered.
The registered manager was open and transparent throughout the inspection process, was receptive to constructive feedback and was committed to develop and improve the service. This included the development of effective quality assurance systems to improve the service people received.