Archived: Eagle House Nursing Home

Eagle House is a 41 bed service providing residential and nursing care to people with enduring mental health support needs, who may also have a diagnosis of learning disability.

The home is located in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, close to the city centre. It is in its own grounds close to numerous retail and leisure facilities. The service comprises a 26 bedded unit for people requiring nursing care, and four discrete bungalows for people requiring residential care.

At the time of the inspection the service had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found that appropriate steps were taken to ensure that the service was safe. There were up to date risk assessments and these were followed by staff. Staff had received training in safeguarding, and there was appropriate guidance for staff to follow in the event of suspected abuse.

Activities were plentiful at the home. There was a dedicated, full time activities coordinator, and other staff were also involved in supporting people to participate in activities both within the home and in the wider community. A shop had recently been opened in the home, which people told us they valued.

The provider ensured that legal requirements were met in relation to people giving consent to their care and treatment. Where people lacked the capacity to consent, best interest arrangements were made, in accordance with The Mental Capacity Act. The registered manager had a good knowledge of the requirements of this legislation, and records within the home showed that where people were deprived of their liberty, this was only done in accordance with the appropriate authorisation.

People received care and treatment that met their needs, and care was regularly reviewed to ensure it remained suitable and effective. When people required the attention of external healthcare professionals this was sought quickly, and care plans showed that the guidance of external healthcare professionals was followed by staff.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to ensure that people received the attention and support that they required. Staff numbers were reviewed on a monthly basis, and our observations showed that people received support whenever they required it. Staff told us they enjoyed their work and felt well supported in their roles.

Each service user has individual and differing needs and the care plans reflected this approach. We saw examples of individual care plans reflecting communication, social activities, individual risk assessments and rest and nutrition.

Alongside the care plans we examined we saw individual risk assessments had been undertaken. Where a risk had been identified an action plan had been put in place to minimize risk.

We saw in the care plans that we looked at a comprehensive assessment of the nutritional needs for each person. This included a nutrition care plan which outlined the needs and food preferences for each person.

We saw that most areas were clean and free of odours. There was a particular strong odour in one of the bedrooms that we visited. This was brought to the notice of the acting manager who told us that this would be investigated and appropriate remedial action would be taken.

There was a lead person for infection control. They were responsible for a regular audit of Infection prevention and control which was carried out every twelve months. We saw evidence that this had been carried out.

We spoke to six members of staff. Comments included 'I absolutely love it here it feels like home' and 'I spend nearly every minute with the residents'.

Training was delivered by the provider's eLearning module, with in house leads for specific topics i.e. moving and handling or classroom training. When each task was completed this was signed off by the person's mentor and countersigned by the manager.

The service was sub-divided. The main residential building was used by people who had been assessed as requiring quite a lot of support. In the grounds of the service there were four bungalows and each bungalow had four bedrooms. The people who lived in the bungalows had been assessed as requiring less support and were seen as be more independent.

We spoke with three members of staff. One staff member told us they enjoyed working in the service. Another told us that they felt the care and support offered was 'very good, people here are treated with dignity and respect.'

The staff we spoke with told us they had received training in safeguarding and we saw there was a corporate safeguarding policy in place to support staff.

We saw that the interaction between staff and the people who used the service was warm and friendly.

We looked at the care plans of four people who used the service. We saw that they were comprehensive and designed to meet the needs of the individual