Archived: Eagle View Care Home

Eagle View Care Home offers accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people or people living with dementia. No nursing care is offered at this service. There were 39 people resident at the service on the day we inspected.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people's individual needs. Staff had been employed following robust recruitment and selection policies and this ensured that only people considered suitable to work with people who may be vulnerable because they were living with dementia worked at the service.

People and their relatives told us that they felt safe living at the home. The registered manager and care staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.

Risk assessments identified any areas of concern around people’s care and support needs, and there were management plans in place to reduce these risks whilst promoting people’s independence.

Staff received induction training when they were newly employed and had on-going training provided for them. This included training on safeguarding adults and the Mental Capacity Act 2015 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We checked medication systems and saw that medicines were recorded, stored, administered and disposed of safely on the day of this inspection. We did identify that medicine room temperatures had been recorded as too high in the summer months which the provider would need to address so that medicines were stored safely. Staff who had responsibility for the administration of medication had received appropriate training.

People told us that staff were caring and that they respected people’s privacy and dignity. We saw that there were positive interactions between people who lived at the home, visitors and staff. People told us they were made welcome at the home and were kept informed about their relative’s well-being.

Activities were organised by an activities co-ordinator. Staff also assisted with activities in order that people received some stimulation. They spent time talking to people which helped to avoid them feeling isolated.

Care plans recorded people’s individual needs and how these should be met by staff. It was clear that staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their specific needs and how they wished to be supported.

The service had links with the local hospice and people had access to a specialist advice line at the local hospice. People who were at the end of their life were supported by clinical nurse specialists from the local hospice who gave us positive feedback about the care people received at this service.

We saw that people’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us that they were very happy with the food provided. We observed that people’s individual food and drink requirements were met and that they were offered a choice at each meal time.

The complaints procedure was accessible to people and the complaints we saw recorded had been managed following the services policy and procedure.

People told us that the home was well managed. Quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas of improvement that would promote people’s safety and well-being. Relatives told us that the registered manager was knowledgeable and approachable. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. Systems were in place to ensure that the registered manager and staff learnt from incidents such as accidents and incidents. The provider had policies in place to preserve people's human rights. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, (DoLS). All staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. Documentation was available in people's care files to support this.

Most staff had received up-to-date training in all mandatory areas, as well as those specific to their job role. Staff recruitment procedures were thorough and in accordance with the provider's policy. Staffing levels were determined based on the individual needs of each person living in the care home. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure unsafe practices were identified and people were protected.

The home environment was clean tidy and odour free. Regular audits of the premises were carried out to ensure people and visitors were safe both inside the home and externally.

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. The registered manager gave effective support to staff including induction training, supervision and appraisal, although updates were required in certain areas. This was supported by a comprehensive training programme. The care home worked effectively with other agencies and health care services to ensure a co-ordinated approach to people's care was achieved.

Is the service caring?

People living in the care home were supported by kind and attentive staff. They were cared for sensitively and given encouragement. People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. Policies were in place to preserve people's human rights.

Is the service responsive?

The complaints procedure was understood by staff, as well as people living in the care home and their relatives. The registered manager had encouraged relatives to have greater involvement in the care offered. Policies were in place for the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, (MCA), and best interest meetings were held.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services, to make sure people received their care in a co-ordinated way. There was a quality assurance process in place. Records showed that any adjustments needed were actioned promptly. This enabled the quality of the service to continually improve. Staff told us they were clear about their role and responsibilities. The registered manager monitored the training needs of the staff. The staff we spoke to felt they were strongly supported by the registered manager. Staff had received ongoing training in order that they may continue to provide effective care. The registered manager monitored the needs of the people and adjusted staffing levels accordingly. This meant that people were safe and their health and welfare needs were met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff.

Through various policies and procedures, the provider had encouraged a respectful culture and relevant values.

We saw evidence in care files that other professionals were involved in peoples care ensuring that people had the benefit of expert advice regarding their physical and mental health.

We looked at how nutrition was managed at this service. People were given a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drinks. Those people who did not want to sit down at meal times were given finger foods.

The service had effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The manager told us that there was an ongoing programme to refurbish the home. There was an odorous carpet on the top floor landing and we advised the provider that they needed to consider this in their refurbishment plan.

There were sufficient staff on the day of our visit to meet the needs of the people who used the service. The staff had a well balanced mix of skills appropriate for the needs of the people who used the service.

The service operated an effective system to identify, assess and manage risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of service users.