Eothen Residential Homes - Whitley Bay

Eothen Residential Homes – Whitley Bay is a 'care home'. Eothen provides accommodation for up to 35 people who require support with personal care, some of whom are living with dementia. 33 people were using the service at the time of the inspection.

We found the following examples of good practice:

• Staff had worked additional hours to ensure the service did not have to rely on agency staff during the coronavirus outbreak. Staffing levels were safe and staff were well supported by senior leaders.

• All visitors had to undergo a temperature check and answer a range of relevant questions before leaving the reception area. There was ample PPE and handwashing facilities available, along with clear signage prior at the entrance and throughout.

• The provider demonstrated a sound understanding of current national guidance and the winter plan; they had plans in place for socially distanced visiting when guidance allowed.

• People kept in touch with their relatives via telephone and videophone, whilst the activities co-ordinator and staff spent additional one to one time with people, as people could not take part in group activities at the time of inspection.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We found the following examples of good practice:

• People were supported to keep in touch with their family members via videocalls. Others had been helped to hold telephone calls whereby the relative was outside and the person sat in the lobby, meaning they could see their relatives. Newsletters kept relatives updated regarding in house activities and celebrations. People who missed regular religious services had been supported to attend these via videocall.

• Staff had undertaken additional training in infection prevention and control. Additional staffing was built into contingency planning, meaning agency staff were not used at any point. The registered manager had employed and trained the regular hairdresser as a care worker. This meant people could continue to have their hair styled/cut even when visits were restricted. The registered manager was aware of the importance of staff wellbeing and ensured they took breaks and stayed hydrated.

• Systems were in place to prevent people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infections. Clear, accessible signage and personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols were in place at the front entrance. Additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was in place.

• Infection control audits were regularly carried out. There was a live risk assessment and action plan in place which the registered manager regularly reviewed and updated. The registered manager had produced a brief guide to the current pandemic, explaining to people and their relatives some of the restrictions and procedures in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

At our last inspection in April 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that 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.

The inspection took place on 11 December 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the provider and staff did not know we would be coming.

The service did not have a registered manager in place at the time of inspection but a manager had recently been employed and had applied to be registered with CQC. 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 who used the service felt safe. The environment was calm and welcoming with staff ensuring people felt at ease.

All staff knew how best to reduce the risks people faced and had been appropriately trained in safeguarding awareness. Specific risks were assessed with actions documented to ensure these risks were reduced.

The management of medicines was safe, including storage and disposal, administration and ongoing monitoring of staff competence. Staff were appropriately trained and knowledgeable.

There were sufficient staff to ensure people were safely supported. The premises were well maintained and clean throughout. Servicing to emergency equipment, lifting equipment and utilities had happened regularly.

Staff received an induction on joining the service and ongoing face to face training. This training was well monitored and managed. Effective systems were in place to ensure the accurate documentation and update of people’s care needs.

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 premises were well suited to people’s needs, with a range of communal spaces indoors and outdoors.

Meals were planned with people’s likes, dislikes and requirements in mind. Feedback regarding meals was uniformly positive.

People were extremely complimentary about the care they received from staff, as were relatives. Staff knew people extremely well and were able to anticipate their needs. Staff communicated well with people and respected their individuality.

People were encouraged to take part in the planning of their care, as were their relatives. The new manager had begun to make good links with people’s family members.

Activities were meaningful and led by people’s preferences. The activities co-ordinator ensured links with local community groups were strong and people had the opportunity to try new things or maintain existing interests.

Staff morale was high and the team worked well together.

Staff had worked hard to ensure the culture was strongly focussed on people’s emotional, physical and spiritual wellbeing and the new manager was keen to maintain this focus.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Eothen is a Christian based care home providing care to a maximum of 35 older people. The home is situated in the centre of Whitley Bay, close to local shops and community facilities.

The service has a registered manager in place. She was on annual leave during 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 were supported with managing their medicines in accordance with their individual care and support needs. The service had safe systems in place to check that people were managing with their medicines.

People had individual risk assessments to support them with their independence and safety. In addition to individual risk assessments, the service also had a range of environmental risk assessments in place. Regular health and safety checks had been carried out in relation to the premises to support with promoting a safe and clean environment. Staff were also clear about the process to follow should an accident or incident occur.

Staff recruitment was robust and records showed all appropriate checks had been carried out. Staff were provided with regular training opportunities to develop their skills and knowledge and to support with their on-going development.

The registered manager had a process in place to assess staffing levels to ensure there was enough staff in place to support people. We saw that staffing was sufficient in numbers to meet with peoples care and support needs. People we spoke with confirmed staffing levels were sufficient.

People had access to a range of health professionals when required, including dentists, GPs, community nurses and chiropodists. Staff had a good understanding of how to support people with specific health related needs and how to promote health and wellbeing.

People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and understood what to do with any concerns.

We found that people were well supported with their nutritional needs. Menus were available which provided a choice of meals for each day. People we spoke with were happy with the choice and quality of meals available.

A range of activities were available for people to take part in each day. People were supported with access to the local community.

People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who clearly knew peoples needs wishes and aspirations. Relatives shared positive comments about the caring attitude of staff .

The service had a complaints process in place. People living in the service and their relatives were provided with information to support them to raise any concerns or complaints they may have.

The service had systems in place to check the quality of care people were receiving. A variety of audits were carried out covering areas relating to medicines health and safety, fire and support planning. Communication systems were in place and people were supported to share their views about the service.

The premises were suitably maintained and decorated to meet with the requirements and taste of people who lived at the home.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff had been trained on how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in place related to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to help ensure people were appropriately assessed and to make sure that people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The deputy manager confirmed that no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as and when required.

There were policies and procedures in place to ensure medicines were safely stored and administered. People told us they received their medication when they required it.

We found staff recruitment was both thorough and safe. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and care plans were developed with people and their representatives. The care plans provided staff with information about how each person's care needs should be met. The staff we spoke with were able to describe the individual needs of the people they cared for and how these needs were met.

The service worked well with other agencies and prompt referrals were made to health care professionals which helped ensure people's health care needs were met.

Is the service caring?

People said staff were kind and attentive. Comments included, "I only need to ask for help and it's there" and "I'm very happy here, everyone is wonderful." A relative said, 'I visit X every day and everything is perfect." We saw that care workers cared for people in a caring and sensitive manner and encouraged independence. For example, we saw a member of staff encouraged someone to stand up to use their zimmer frame to walk to their bedroom. Another person was asked if they required assistance to cut their meat at lunch time and this was done sensitively and respected the person's dignity.

Is the service responsive?

A range of activities were provided in and outside the home. The home employed one full time and one part time Activities Organiser to provide appropriate activities for the people who lived in the home.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The people we spoke with said they had never needed to complain about anything.

Is the service well-led?

People who used the service and their relatives were asked to complete an annual satisfaction survey. The results were analysed so any improvements could be put into place.

The service had a quality assurance system and records showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. One staff member said, "I know what I have to do and if I have any questions there is always a senior person around." Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We found people were involved in decisions about their care whenever possible and their privacy and dignity was respected.

We found people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. We observed that relationships between staff and people appeared to be good and people looked clean and well cared for.

We found that there were infection control systems in place and these were adhered to.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

Care records contained accurate and appropriate information and could be accessed in a timely manner.