We carried out a review of the data available to us about Eric Morecambe House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Eric Morecambe House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider and registered manager had robust procedures in place for staff and visitors entering the home. Staff changed their outdoor clothes including shoes in a designated room at the entrance prior to entering the main building. Staff tunics were laundered on site for staff to change into on arrival. Clear information was provided to visitors and access to separate bathroom facilities and PPE were available in the entrance for all visitors.
District nurses had their own room to don and doff PPE. People were brought to the district nurses where possible to avoid them having to walk through the home.
Staff breaks and handovers had been redesigned to support social distancing.
The provider and registered manager ensured staff knowledge and practice was reinforced. Information which described what the previous practice had been and how it had changed in response to Covid 19 was displayed.
The provider and registered manager had developed communication guides for staff which described how to enhance communication for people who would find staff wearing masks a barrier.
A robust admission policy for new people was in place, this included having a negative Covid19 test, 14 days quarantine on admission, regular observations, full PPE and disposal facilities in their room and disposable plates and cutlery.
People who were supported to attend medical appointments outside of the home, and the staff who went with them, changed their clothes on return to the home.
The provider ensured policies and procedures in relation to infection prevention and control were updated and communicated regularly.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
At the last inspection carried out on 26 February 2016 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. 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.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 who lived at the home and their visitors told us they were very happy with the care provided at the home and staff were caring and compassionate. They told us staff were very kind and attentive and spent quality time with them. People visiting their relatives told us they were very happy with the care being provided. They told us staff were always polite and willing to listen if they had a problem.
A visiting healthcare professional told us they felt the service provided very good care. They were impressed with the knowledge and dedication of staff with their attention to end of life care.
Throughout the inspection we observed staff being kind and attentive to people in their care. We saw they were caring, patient and engaged people in conversation whilst providing their support.
People told us they felt safe in the care of staff who supported them. We saw staff were always in attendance and available when people needed their help.
Procedures were in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.
Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.
Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.
The service had sufficient staffing levels in place to provide support people required. We saw staff showed concern for people’s wellbeing and responded quickly when people required their help.
Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medication procedures observed protected people from unsafe management of their medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed and when needed and appropriate records had been completed.
We saw there was an emphasis on promoting dignity, respect and independence for people who lived at the home. People told us staff treated them as individuals and delivered person centred care.
We observed the daily routines and practices within the home and found people were treated equally and their human rights were constantly being respected.
The design of the building was appropriate for the care and support provided. We found facilities and equipment had been serviced and maintained as required to ensure the home was a safe place for people to live.
The service had safe infection control procedures in place. People who lived at the home told us they were happy with the standard of hygiene in place.
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.
People’s care and support had been planned with them and was person centred. They told us they had been consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered.
Care plans were organised and had identified care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received.
People told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. Meal times were relaxed and well managed. People who required assistance with their meal were supported patiently by staff.
People were supported to have access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met.
People told us staff were caring towards them. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of high standards of care to give people meaningful lives.
The service had information with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by people they supported.
People told us staff who supported them always treated them with respect and dignity.
The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people and their family when they commenced using the service. The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the service and had no complaints.
People who lived at the home told us they enjoyed a variety of activities which were organised for their entertainment.
The service used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits, resident meetings and satisfaction surveys to seek their views about the service provided.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
This unannounced inspection took place on 01, 04 and 09 December 2015.
The home is situated in a residential area of Torrisholme near to local shops and close to public transport links to both Lancaster and Morecambe. The building is arranged over three floors, with bedrooms and communal rooms on the first and second floors. The home is registered to accommodate 36 people. There were 33 people residing at the home on the dates of the inspection.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
The service was last inspected 17 October 2013. We identified no concerns at this inspection and found the provider was meeting all standards that we assessed.
At this inspection in December 2015, we found processes were established and followed to ensure people who lived at the home were kept safe. People told us they felt safe and secure. Staff we spoke with had a good awareness of what constituted abuse and how to report it. Systems were in place to ensure staff employed were of good character and had suitable experience for the role.
People who lived at the home and relatives told us staffing levels were satisfactory and staff responded to need in a timely manner. The registered manager told us they used a dependency tool to assess and monitor staffing levels. We observed staff being patient with people and meeting their needs in a responsive manner.
Robust systems were in place to ensure medicines were managed and administered correctly to each person. Regular audits of medicines were carried out by staff on duty and by a designated medicines lead.
Feedback regarding the provision of meals was positive. People told us the food was good and said there was always a choice of what to eat. Regular snacks and drinks were available to people between meals. Mealtimes were seen as a social occasion for people who lived at the home. Relatives and visitors were made welcome and were encouraged to eat with people who lived at Eric Morecambe House. We saw evidence that people were encouraged to give feedback about the quality of food and contributed to meal planning. The registered provider had systems in place to monitor people’s dietary needs.
People’s healthcare needs were monitored and referrals were made to health professionals in a timely manner when people’s health needs changed. Feedback from health professionals about the way in which health needs were met was also positive.
Risks to people who lived at the home were appropriately managed. Systems were in place to manage people at risk of falls, people at risk of pressure ulcers and other health related conditions.
The registered provider kept a detailed log of all accidents and incidents that had occurred at the home. Information and advice was sought from a specialist team employed within Anchor Trust. The team looked at factors which may have contributed to an accident or incident and ways to prevent further accidents from occurring.
There was a good array of social activities for people who lived at Eric Morecambe House. The registered provider had established links with various community groups who frequented the home and provided entertainment. Some people were also encouraged and supported to attend groups in the community. Family members and friends were invited to participate in activities. Consideration was taken to ensure people who chose not to interact within groups were supported in their rooms. Cultural needs were also recognised by the registered provider.
Detailed care plans were in place for people who lived at the home. Care plans covered their support needs and personal wishes. We saw plans had been reviewed and updated at regular intervals and information was sought from appropriate professionals as and when required. The registered provider worked towards promoting and maintaining independence wherever possible.
The registered provider had a training and development plan in place for all staff. Staff were positive about their work and confirmed they were supported by the registered manager. Staff received regular training to make sure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.
Feedback in regards to the management of the home was positive. Staff, people who lived at the home and relatives spoke highly of the registered manager and deputy manager.
We spoke with people who lived at the home. They told us they could express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care. They told us they felt listened to when discussing their care needs.
We spent time in areas of the home, including the lounge and the dining areas. This helped us to observe the daily routines and gain an insight into how people's care and support was being managed. Staff treated people with respect and provided support or attention as people requested it.
We reviewed medication administration and practices at the home and saw that appropriate arrangements in place for people's medicines to be handled safely.
We looked at staff training records and supervision arrangements. Staff told us they felt supported, had regular meetings with the provider and their training was kept up to date.
There were a range of audits and systems in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided.
We were able to speak with four people during the day of the inspection about their care and support. People we spoke with told us they could express their views and were involved in decision making about their care. They told us they felt listened to when discussing their care needs. They said they were happy living at the home and said that staff were polite and kind.
We spent time in areas of the home, including lounges and the dining areas. This helped us to observe the daily routines and gain an insight into how people's care and support was being managed.
We observed staff assisting people who required care and support with personal care. Staff treated people with respect and ensured their privacy when supporting them. They provided support or attention as people requested it.
We spoke with several people who live at the home plus two relatives as well as a selection of staff members. We received positive feedback and comments included;
From residents:
'Staff are very nice they go out of their way for you.'
'I'd rather be at home but it is lovely here.'
'Food is very good but it's not the same as your own cooking at home.'
'I came to try out the home for a month and liked it so much I stayed.'
'We are so well looked after.'
'Staff are so very pleasant with you.'
'Julie who does the activities is absolutely fabulous, all the residents love her.'
From staff:
'Anchor are consistent and try to up their standards all the time.'
'Catering staff and care staff work well together.'
'Anchor are good to work for.'
'I have no problems going to the manager or team leader if I am worried about anything.'
Relatives
'As my mum's needs have changed so has the way the home has cared for her.'
'The staff are very open to talking if I have a problem.'
'I am involved with my mum in her care planning. I appreciate the way mum is treated as an individual.'
'We came for a first visit had lunch and met some of the residents and ended up spending half a day here.'
'The kitchen staff are wonderful.'