Background to this inspection
Updated
11 December 2018
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 13 November 2018 and was unannounced.
The inspection team consisted of one inspector. Prior to this inspection, we reviewed information that we held about the home such as notifications. These are events that happen in the home that the provider is required to tell us about. We considered the last inspection report and information that had been sent to us by other agencies. We also contacted commissioners who had a contract with the registered provider.
We considered the information in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the home and the services provided, what the home does well and improvements they plan to make.
During the inspection, we spoke with seven people who lived at the home and four visiting relatives for their views about the services provided. We spoke with the registered manager, the registered nurse on duty, five care staff, the administrator, the chef, the kitchen assistant and a housekeeper. We also spoke with a visiting education professional.
We spent time observing how people and staff interacted because we were not able to have extended conversations with some people due to their communication needs. We looked at specific parts of people’s care plans and observed how they received their medicines. We also looked at information provided by the registered manager related to the running of the home.
Updated
11 December 2018
We inspected Eliot House on 13 November 2018. The inspection was unannounced. Eliot House 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 29 older people; some of whom have nursing care needs and some of whom experience memory loss.
On the day of our inspection 27 people were living in the home.
At our last inspection on 2 March 2016 we rated the home as ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘good’ overall. 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 home has not changed since our last inspection.
People continued to receive a safe service where they were protected from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and safe staff recruitment procedures were in place and used. People received their prescribed medicines safely.
People continued to receive an effective service. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were followed. The policies and systems in the home supported this practice. Staff had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care for people. People were cared for by staff who were well supported by the manager. People were supported to maintain their nutrition and staff monitored and responded promptly to people’s health conditions.
People continued to receive care from staff who were kind, compassionate and treated them with dignity and respected their privacy. Staff had developed positive relationships with the people they supported, they understood people’s needs, preferences, and what was important to them.
People continued to receive a responsive service. Their needs were reflected in care plans and staff followed the guidance in the care plans. People were offered opportunities to pursue their interests and hobbies, and join in with social activities.
The home continued to be well led. There was an open and person-centred culture in which people and staff were encouraged to share their views and opinions. Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.