A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff and they told us that they felt safe. One person told us "They really look after you here". The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that reasonable steps had been taken to protect people from abuse.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and investigations. This reduced risk to people who used the service and helped the service to continually improve. The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly.
The needs of residents were taken into account when making decisions about the qualifications, skills and experience required when appointing new staff. Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that any unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw, and from speaking with staff, that they had a detailed understanding of people's individual care and support needs. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home.
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in designing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.
Although Eastbury House had not been originally built as a care home, people's needs had been taken into account when it had been converted. The layout of the accommodation enabled people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments. Relatives and friends confirmed that they were made welcome when they visited, could share meals with residents and could stay overnight if necessary.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our observations confirmed this. A visitor said "Everyone is very friendly and caring here".
As well as addressing physical needs, care plans also described specific ways of comforting individuals if they became distressed. Individual preferences were always respected and people who lived at the home were encouraged to arrange their rooms to reflect their own taste and wishes.
The registered manager had developed a good relationship with local healthcare professionals. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider. Regular healthcare visits ensured that any long-term medical issues were addressed in a timely manner. We were told that GPs responded quickly if there were more urgent medical problems that needed to be resolved.
Is the service responsive?
People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Records confirmed that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded. Care and support had been provided that met their wishes. Special attention was paid to nutritional needs and people told us that they enjoyed the home-made food.
People had access to activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends, relatives and pets. People took part in a range of activities both in and outside the home on a regular basis. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. No-one that we spoke with had had cause to complain but they were confident that any problems would be dealt with effectively.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received continuity of care. People who lived at the home confirmed that staff listened to their views. Changes that they had suggested had been acted on whenever possible.
The service has a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that any identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. The registered manager of the home was actively involved in the day-to-day care of residents and was able to train and supervise less experienced staff. This meant that any weaknesses in the care provided were rapidly addressed. As a result of these measures the quality of the service was continuingly improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and told us that they enjoyed helping the people who lived at Eastbury House. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.