We carried out a review of the data available to us about Eastholme 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 Eastholme, you can give feedback on this service.
Eastholme is a care home and provides accommodation and support for up to four people living with a learning disability. There were four people living at the service when we visited.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice and independence.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Relatives and people told us they were happy with the service. One relative told us, “[Person] seems very content and happy.” The provider had systems in place to ensure people remained safe. Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of the provider’s whistleblowing process. Risks had been identified and managed. The provider ensured checks were in place to maintain the safety of the home.
People received support to take their medicines safely. The provider ensured staff employed were suitable with the right skills and experience to support people living at the service. Enough well-trained staff were available to ensure people’s needs were met.
Staff treated people as individuals with compassion and kindness. The provider had a clear ethos which staff spoke proudly about. Staff told us they were supported by the management team.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
We observed many happy interactions between people and staff. Staff clearly knew people well and were knowledgeable about people’s life histories, family structures, preferences and care and support needs. We observed staff seek permission before supporting people.
Care plans were person centred and provided staff with clear information on how to support people in line with their preferences. People were supported to take part in activities and interests they enjoyed.
The provider had an effective quality assurance processes to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.
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 on 21 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor this service and inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for services rated good.
We previously inspected Eastholme on 3 and 4 November 2015 and informed the registered provider they were in breach of two regulations: staffing and good governance. The provider subsequently submitted an action plan detailing how they would address these breaches of regulation.
Whilst completing this visit we reviewed the actions taken by the registered provider to address the above breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We found that the registered provider had ensured improvements were made regarding the governance of the service and a new manager had been recently appointed. We found this manager had made improvements to the service in the areas identified at the last inspection.
Eastholme is a residential home in Seaham, County Durham, providing accommodation and personal care for up to 4 people with learning disabilities. There were 4 people using the service at the time of our inspection.
The service did not have a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like directors, 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. We saw that, since the last registered manager had left the service the new manager had applied to register with CQC and had been given an interview date with CQC. The manager had their registration with CQC confirmed shortly after the inspection. The manager had introduced a range of improvements in the seven weeks they had been at the service.
People who used the service acted in a trusting manner with staff whom they knew well and relatives expressed confidence in the ability of staff to protect people from harm.
Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of how to keep people safe, both through formal safeguarding procedures if needed, and through adhering to risk assessments and support plans.
There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to safely meet the needs of people using the service and to maintain the premises. All areas of the building including people’s rooms, bathrooms and communal areas were clean.
We found one instance of a pre-employment check via the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) not being appropriately acted on. The manager took prompt action to assess this risk and we saw other pre-employment checks, including references and ID checks, were in place.
The storage, administration and disposal of medicines was safe and in line with guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Specific plans were in place for people with ‘when required’ medicines.
There was regular liaison with GPs, nurses and specialists such as psychiatrists to ensure people received the treatment they needed. Professionals we spoke with confirmed staff communicated well with them.
Staff were trained in areas specific to meeting people’s needs, for example Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) training, and were also trained in areas the registered provider considered mandatory, such as safeguarding, fire safety, health and safety, medication administration, equality and diversity, human rights and infection control.
Staff were supported by regular supervision and appraisal processes as well as regular team meetings. The service manager had reviewed the amount of supervision meetings staff had received and ensured adequate future meetings were planned.
We observed people being supported to choose a range of meal options and make their own drinks. Staff were aware of people’s dietary needs and preferences.
Group activities included outings to outdoor activity providers and local parks, as well as day-to-day activities such as shopping.
A complaints process was in place and, whilst no one we spoke with had raised a formal complaint, one relative confirmed the manager had listened to a specific concern of theirs and taken appropriate action.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA. The manager displayed a good understanding of capacity being specific to individual decisions and we found related assessments and decisions had been properly taken and the provider had followed the requirements in the DoLS.
The atmosphere at the home was welcoming and calm. People who used the service, relatives and external stakeholders told us staff were caring and we saw numerous friendly and patient interactions by staff.
Person-centred care plans were in place and regular reviews took place with the involvement of people, their family members and relevant professionals.
Staff, people who used the service, relatives and external professionals we spoke with expressed confidence in the manager, particularly commenting on their positivity and enthusiasm, although all acknowledged they had not been at the service long. The manager was registering with CQC at the time of inspection and was able to explain how they intended to sustain improvements already made and make other improvements.
This inspection took place on 3-4 November 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.
Eastholme provides care and accommodation for up to four people with autistic spectrum disorder or other learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection there were three people using the service.
The home had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. At the time of our inspection visit, the registered manager was on sick leave and a temporary manager was in charge.
Eastholme was last inspected by CQC on 17 September 2013 and was compliant.
There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff.
Accidents and incidents were not consistently recorded.
People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.
Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals however staff training was not up to date.
Care records had not been updated with a person’s dietary needs.
The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. The provider was working within the principles of the MCA.
People who used the service, and family members, were complimentary about the standard of care at Eastholme.
Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.
We saw that the home had a full programme of activities in place for people who used the service.
Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they moved into Eastholme and care plans were written in a person centred way.
The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place and complaints were fully investigated.
The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.
The service had links with the community and other organisations.
We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We saw the home had effective systems in place to manage medicines. We saw people were safe. We saw there was sufficient staff on duty to provide care and support.
The provider had an effective system in place to record and monitor complaints. Complaints were taken seriously and responded to appropriately.
People who used the service and their families were very positive about the care and support provided. Comments included 'We are very happy. We would not want to move her' and 'The care is superb. I could not wish for better'.
We found that members of staff were attentive to people's needs. People looked well cared for and at ease with the staff members who were supporting them.
People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.