Eastfield

Updated 22 June 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 inspection took place on the 30 April and 1 May 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of three 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. The expert-by-experience for this inspection had experience in care for older people.

The registered manager had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks them to give some key information about the service, what they do well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at other information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports and notifications. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the service must inform us about.

Some people were unable to tell us about their experiences. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed staff interactions with people and observed care and support in communal areas. We spoke with six people about the care and support they received. We spoke with two relatives who gave their feedback about the service. As part of the inspection we spoke with the area manager, the registered manager, deputy manager and four care staff.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care plans and records including care planning documentation, risk assessments, nutrition and hydration information and medicine records. We looked at documentation that related to staff management and staff recruitment including three staff files. We also looked at records concerning the monitoring, safety and quality of the service.

Updated 22 June 2018

The inspection took place on 30 April and 1 May 2018 and was unannounced.

Eastfield is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 43 older people. Offering both residential care and dementia care. Bedrooms are situated on two floors and there is a shaft lift so that they are accessible for people with mobility difficulties. All bedrooms are single occupancy with en-suite facilities. There were 32 people living at the service at the time of our inspection, some of which were living with dementia.

At our last inspection, we rated the service as 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.

A registered manager was employed at the service and had been in the position for a period of 18 months. 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 registered manager was supported by a deputy manager and an area manager.

People continued to be protected from the risk of harm or abuse. Risks to people were assessed and minimised. There were sufficient staff deployed to keep people safe meet their needs. Staff had been recruited safely. People received their medicines safely from staff that had been trained and had their competency assessed.

People were protected by the prevention and control of infection where possible, with systems in place to ensure the risk of contamination were minimised. Accidents and incidents continued to be managed effectively.

People continued to have their needs and choices assessed when they started using the service, either as respite or on a permanent basis. People received care that was personalised to their needs. People were supported to take part in meaningful activities which they enjoyed. People were encouraged to raise concerns or complaints.

People continued to be encouraged to make their own choices about their lives. 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 and staff were asked for their feedback about the service, with action taken if any suggestions or concerns were raised.

People continued to be given a choice at mealtimes and were able to access drinks and snacks throughout the day. People’s nutrition and hydration needs had been assessed and recorded. Staff and the chef met people’s specific dietary needs and support. Staff ensured people remained as healthy as possible with support from health care professionals, if required.

Staff continued to be trained to meet people’s needs including any specialist needs. Staff were given feedback, support and guidance from their line manager, through regular supervision meetings. Staff were seen to be kind and compassionate towards people. People and their relatives were involved with making decisions about care and support. People were treated with privacy and dignity.

There was an inclusive, open and transparent nature to the service. The registered manager understood the legal requirements of their role. Systems continued to be in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided to people. There was a range of checks and audits carried out to ensure the safety and quality of the service that was provided to people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below