Archived: Eden Court

The care home is purpose built. Bedrooms are situated on both the ground and first floor and have communal lounges and dining room.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff were trained on how to keep people safe from the risk of infection and use PPE correctly. Through our observation and discussions with staff, it was clear staff understood their responsibility in infection prevention and control.

New admissions were tested for COVID 19 and the results were known before they were admitted to the home. All new admissions were isolated to their rooms for 14 days.

The home was in national lockdown and closed to visitors at the time of the inspection. However, prior to this the home had implemented changes to reduce the risk of infection transmission. This included visits through an appointment system to manage the flow of visitors and allow time for staff to disinfect areas before and after each visit.

Staff supported people to keep in touch with family and friends through video and phone calls to prevent isolation and promote people's mental wellbeing.

However, some furniture in the communal lounges and equipment required deep cleaning.

Eden Court is a care home providing personal and nursing care to 35 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 39 people.

The care home is purpose built. Bedrooms are situated on both the ground and first floor with communal lounges and a dining room on the ground floor.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and their relatives were positive about the service and the care provided. One person told us, “It’s a fine place, clean, friendly and very professional. They become your family and you couldn’t ask for better.”

People told us they thought the food was good. People were cared for by staff who knew how to keep them safe and protect them from avoidable harm. There were suitable and sufficient numbers of qualified staff to support people in line with their assessed needs.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. The home was welcoming and friendly. It was clear people and staff had formed good relationships. People and relatives were involved in decision making. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

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 were involved in decisions about their care and support. The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

The registered manager was proactive and people and staff knew them.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 6 February 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned 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 of Eden Court took place on 12 December 2016 and was unannounced. The previous inspection in April 2015 had rated the home as requires improvement in all domains and there was a breach of the regulations in relation to staffing. During this inspection we checked to see if improvements had been made.

The home provides residential and nursing care for up to 40 people. Bedrooms are situated on both the ground and first floor with communal lounges and a dining room on the ground floor. During our inspection there were 36 people living in the home, 30 of whom required nursing care. Two bedrooms were being kept free due to a planned refurbishment programme.

There was a registered manager in post on the day of the inspection. 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 and relatives told us they felt safe and we saw evidence of appropriate care delivery, in line with people’s needs. Risks were managed in the least restrictive manner, ensuring people were supported as needed but could also make choices about their care.

Staffing levels had improved since the previous inspection and people had their needs attended to promptly. Medicines were managed safely and were stored appropriately.

We found staff had all received supervision and training which enabled them to function well and a team identity was obvious.

The home was operating in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to make decisions as far as they were able, and for those who lacked capacity decisions were made according to those authorised to do so.

People were supported throughout the day with their nutritional needs and offered regular drinks. Where extra assistance was required this was delivered discretely and following recommendations from other health professionals such as the Speech and Language Therapy Team.

Staff were caring, showing they knew people well and treated everyone with a high degree of respect. Privacy was protected and staff operated with discretion.

Care records were person-centred and comprehensive providing staff with clear guidelines to enable them to support people safely and effectively.

Complaints were investigated in depth and learning from them shared with staff in their regular meetings and group supervisions.

We found the home was well run with a competent registered manager who had developed multiple systems of support and scrutiny to ensure care was delivered to the highest possible standard. The auditing system was robust and showed a responsive service which was keen to tackle any deficiencies swiftly and effectively.

The people who used the service told us they were looked after well and felt safe with the care and treatment provided. Their comments included: "It's wonderful here", 'They are all very friendly' and 'It's wonderful being here'.

We found that service had appropriate systems in place to ensure consent was gained before staff proceeded with personal care.

We saw that there was an appropriate system in place for listening to and acting on people's comments and concerns.

We spent time observing the lounge and dining areas during the day of our inspection. We looked at how people spent their time and how staff interacted with people. The interactions we saw between staff and people who used the service and visitors were respectful.

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We spoke with seven people living in the home, three relatives and seven members of staff. These are some of the things they told us:

'The staff are angels, every single one of them.'

'The night staff are very good they know I don't sleep well and come and offer to get me a cup of tea.'

'I am very satisfied with the care my relative is receiving.'

'The staff are brilliant it's like a family.'

'I enjoy working here we have a good staff team.'

We saw that staff were respectful and were mindful of people's dignity. All of the people we spoke with were very happy with the staff that were caring for them.

We found that care plans were in place that gave staff information about the care and support people required. However, we found that there were not sufficient numbers of staff to deliver this support consistently.

We found that the medication system was not being managed safely.

We saw there was a complaints procedure in place and people we spoke with told us they would feel able to raise any concerns. However, we found that the complaints procedure had not been followed and two people had not received responses to their complaints.

We also found that relatives were happy with the care and felt that the home was well run.

The staff told us that they had regular training and support from the management team at the home.

The home had completed an extensive refurbishment programme, which had improved the quality of the environment for everyone. The home had new flooring and furniture and we received many positive comments about the environment from the people who lived at the home and their visitors. We did however feel that the noise levels within the home were unduly stressful and did not always consider the comfort of people living at the home.