Archived: Eaves Hall Rest Home

Updated 12 May 2021

Eaves Hall Rest Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 15 older people and people with mental health support needs. At the time of the inspection, 11 people were living at the home.

We found the following examples of good practice:

Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and how to put on and take off personal protective equipment (PPE) safely. They wore appropriate PPE in line with the Government guidance. Supplies of PPE were available throughout the home and used PPE was disposed of safely.

We found that the home was clean and hygienic. Enhanced cleaning was being completed regularly throughout the home, including areas that were touched frequently, to ensure people were protected as much as possible from the risk of cross infection.

The provider was facilitating visits to people living at the home in line with the Government guidance and there was a designated area where visits could take place safely. Visitors were screened for COVID-19 symptoms on arrival and were required to wear appropriate PPE and maintain social distancing during their visit. Family and friends were required to take a lateral flow (rapid) test before they could enter the home and visiting professionals were required to provide evidence of a negative test result in the previous 72 hours. Staff and people living at the home were being tested regularly, to ensure that appropriate action could be taken if anyone contracted the COVID-19 virus.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Updated 12 May 2021

We inspected the service on 29 November 2018. The inspection was unannounced. Eaves Hall Rest Home 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. The service accommodates up to 15 people.

On the day of our inspection 14 people were using the service.

At our last inspection on 27 July and 1 August 2016. We rated the service as 'good.' At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of 'good' overall. Although we did find areas of practice that required improvement in order to maintain a safe service, there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring which 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.

People did not always receive a safe service. We found that there were no hand sanitizers in place on entering the home to reduce the risk of infection. We also found that hand towels and swing bins were in use in some bathrooms and toilets, instead of paper towels and pedal bins. This meant that there was the potential for viruses to spread. We raised this issue during inspection and immediate action was taken. Risks to people’s individual safety were assessed but information around people’s specific health conditions was not always documented. Although we were told fire drills were taking place, there were no formal records to evidence this. Discussion took place with the registered manager who assured us they would document these and arranged an external fire safety check to take place.

Staff knew how to keep people safe and reduce the risks of harm from occurring. Staff had completed training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns. There were enough staff to meet people's needs and safe staff recruitment processes were used, to further reduce risks to people. Staff supported people to have the medicines they needed to remain well. The administration of people's medicines was checked, so the registered manager could be assured people received these safely. However no formal medication competency assessments were completed for staff. This was discussed with the registered manager who assured us that these would be completed.

People continued to receive an effective service. Some staff training was outdated and we found one isolated incidence where a staff member had not received moving and handling training. This was addressed promptly and the training was booked during the inspection. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink, based on their preferences. Staff had developed good systems for working with other health and social care professionals, so people's health needs would be met promptly. 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. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.

People continued to receive care from staff who were compassionate and caring and people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people's preferences and knew what mattered to the people they cared for. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible, with support from staff. There was a welcoming and homely atmosphere at the service.

People continued to receive a responsive service. People's needs were considered before they came to live at Eaves Hall Rest Home, and care plans were developed to meet their needs. People's relatives and other health and social care professionals had been consulted about planned care. People had told us they had opportunities to engage in some activities.

Systems were in place to support people to raise any concerns or make any complaints. None of the people living in the home or their relatives had wanted to make any complaints because they considered the care provided was good.

Staff had worked effectively with other health and social care professionals so people's wishes at the end of their lives were met. People and staff felt supported, listened to and valued by the management.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.