Edenhurst Rest Home

Updated 17 April 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was carried out by two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type: Edenhurst Rest Home is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced

What we did:

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse; and we sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection, we spoke with seven people who used the service and four relatives to ask about their experience of the care provided. In addition, we spoke with three visiting health professionals.

We spoke with six members of staff including the nominated individual, registered manager, deputy manager, senior care workers, care workers and kitchen staff.

We reviewed a range of records. This included six people's care records and multiple medication records. We also looked at five staff files in relation to recruitment and supervision records along with records relating to the management of the home and a variety of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the provider.

Updated 17 April 2019

About the service: Edenhurst Rest Home is a care home providing accommodation for up to 24 people requiring nursing or personal care. At the time of our inspection, 24 people were living at the service. The accommodation is established between two large two storey converted family homes designated as East and West. On the ground floor there was a small reception area in the East wing, bedrooms, a small dining area and small communal lounge, which was also used for delivering activities plus a kitchen and managers office. The West wing mirrored this layout but without the kitchen the first-floor housed further bedrooms and a bathroom. Access between the floors was via a central lift or staircases which were secured to prevent risk of injury from falls.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were not always protected from the risk of an acquired health infection, as the service did not provide adequate handwashing facilities in all rooms. Staff did not always ensure the environment was clean. Although appropriate policies and procedures to monitor and reduce the risk of infection were in place these were not always followed

Systems were in place to support people to take their medicines safely, but these were not always followed. Staff did not always record and manage medicines prescribed ‘as required’ safely. Information recorded about people’s allergies to medicines was contradictory.

Safe recruitment practices were in place but not always evidenced. Information regarding proof of identification and DBS checks was not present for all staff.

People felt safe and staff ensured that risks to their health and safety were reduced. We found that sufficient staff were deployed to safely meet people’s needs. Staff had received training to ensure they had the knowledge to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm or abuse, whilst providing care.

Staff received relevant training and felt well supported. People were asked for their consent to their care and appropriate steps were taken to support people who lacked capacity to make decisions.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain good health.

There were positive and caring relationships between people using the service and the staff who cared for them. Staff promoted people's right to make their own decisions about their care where possible and respected the choices they made. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood the importance of this.

People received person-centred and responsive care from staff who had a clear understanding of their current support needs. Care plans were in place, which provided information about the care people required.

People knew how to make a complaint and there was a clear complaints procedure in place.

When people were at the end of their life the service had effective measures in place to support them and ensure their wishes and needs were met.

An open and transparent culture enabled people and staff to speak up if they wished to. The management team provided strong leadership and a clear direction to staff.

There were quality monitoring procedures in place but these were not always effective at identifying and responding to issues.

The management structure of the service was clear.

People's safety had been considered and risks had been reduced by the introduction of equipment or guidance. Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding and knew how to protect people from harm.

Information was provided in a range of formats to support understanding. People were able to access spiritual support to meet their religious beliefs.

There was a registered manager at the home and the rating from their previous inspection was displayed at the home and on their website. When required notifications were usually completed to inform us of events and incidents, this helped us the monitor the action the provider had taken.

Rating at last inspection: Requires Improvement (Published January 2018)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At this inspection we found the service had improved in some areas but remained Requires improvement.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.