Background to this inspection
Updated
25 December 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on the 5 and 6 September 2018 and was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second day. This inspection was carried out by an inspector, an inspection manager and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection we reviewed the information we already held about this service. This included details of its registration, previous inspection reports and notifications of serious incidents the provider had sent us. We also used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We contacted the local authority with responsibility for commissioning care from the service to seek their views.
During the inspection we spoke with twelve people and seven visitors (friends and relatives). We also spoke with three students (on work experience) and twelve staff; six carers, one senior carer, one administrator, one housekeeper, the deputy manager, the registered manager and the nominated individual for the provider who was a director of the company. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the regulated activity provided. We also spoke with two visiting health care professionals. We observed how staff interacted with people. We looked at five people’s care plans and we checked ten people’s medicines records. We looked at quality assurance and monitoring systems and checked some of the policies and procedures. We also examined staff recruitment, training and supervision records for six staff.
Updated
25 December 2018
Ebury Court is a residential care home providing care for up to 39 older people, many of whom have dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people using the service.
At the last inspection in December 2015 the service was rated Outstanding. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Outstanding and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Ebury Court 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.
Ebury Court has a registered manager. 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.’
There were excellent training and development opportunities for staff that were often bespoke and tailored to staff’s individual learning needs. Staff could develop their learning at a journal club by bringing social care articles for discussion and reflection with other staff, people or residents. Staff had monthly supervision where reflection on development was emphasised.
People were extremely complimentary about the food stating it was “great” and we observed exquisite meal presentation for those with dietary requirements. Staff support of healthcare professionals was exemplary with said professionals highlighting the service was better than others in the local area.
People’s care plans were personalised and these were used to provide tailored individual activities. There were excellent activities that engaged, included and involved people, particularly those with dementia. The provider had created bespoke care programs that they were able to evidence benefitted people in multiple ways. The service provided excellent end of life care that was viewed by professional bodies as gold and/or platinum standard. The service was visited by healthcare professionals, nationally and internationally, due to the recognition of high standards of care provided by trade bodies and academic institutions.
People, relatives and staff all thought the service was extremely well led and that the management team cared deeply about people. Staff felt the provider invested in them and were able to tell us how they felt the service had gone above and beyond the remit of just an employer. People and staff all participated in, and had involvement in the running of service through meetings and transparent relationships with management. People and staff told us they had a voice within the service and that they trusted the provider to listen. The provider had forged beneficial links with community partners, academic institutions and professional bodies that enhanced and enriched the lives of people completely remote from the service as well as those in their local community. The service had won numerous awards and accolades demonstrating their excellence in staff development, dementia and end of life care.
People told us they felt safe at Ebury Court. Staff understood how to safeguard people from harm and knew what to do if they suspected abuse. Staff knew how to administer and store medicines safely. There were robust infection control procedures in place. People and staff told us there were enough staff to meet their needs. The provider had safe recruitment practices that meant only suitable staff were employed.
People told us they were treated with kindness and compassion. People could express their views and had choices with their treatment. Staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.
People told is their complaints were listened to. The service's building had been adapted to meet people’s needs. The service was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 principles and had applied Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards correctly.