We carried out a review of the data available to us about Eclipse HomeCare (Gilbert Court) 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 Eclipse HomeCare (Gilbert Court), you can give feedback on this service.
Gilbert Court is an extra care scheme providing personal care to 60 people living in a purpose built housing complex and 30 people in the local community. Not everyone who lived at the scheme received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People experienced care which was centred around them and personalised to ensure they regained independence in daily living. The provider had worked with a number of new tools, to develop and promote this care philosophy. These values shared with the staff team who demonstrated their committee to provide great care and understood how their role could achieve this. People were supported to live their lives with a sense of independence and purpose.
People told us they had developed special relationships with their care givers over time and had a mutual trust and respect for each other. People received care which meet their individual needs and staff understood and knew people very well. Individualised care was reflective of people’s choices and life histories.
People, relatives and staff told us they found the service to be very well managed and was a remarkably caring service. There was consistent praise from staff on the skills of the management team who were keen and motivated to provide an exceptional service.
The provider used best practice and demonstrated this through their detailed and exhaustive governance processes. People were able to maintain and in some areas improve relationships with people who were important to them. Relatives were encouraged to be involved in people's lives to add further knowledge of the person.
People retained responsibility for their own health and the staff team supported people to make and attend appointments if needed. This promoted and maintained people’s health needs. Medicines were managed so that people received their medicines as prescribed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from harm and knew how to report any potential concerns to ensure people’s safety was maintained. Where risks associated with people's health and wellbeing had been identified, there were plans to manage those risks.
People received their care at the times they wanted and from the care givers they liked. People and relatives told us the care provided them with positive outcomes.
Staff training reflected the needs of people’s specific care and support needs so staff had the knowledge and understood how best to provide their care. Staff told us the provider offered a range of opportunities to further develop their skills and knowledge.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 25 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intention to undertake an inspection. This was because the organisation provides a domiciliary care service to people in their homes; we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office. People lived within their own individual flats and shared some communal areas.
The provider registered this service with us to provide personal care and support for people with a range of varying needs including dementia, who live in their own homes.
The service provides personal care to people living either in their own home or the home of a family member. At the time of the inspection, approximately 30 people used the service and a registered manager was in post. 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.
People were familiar with staff who regularly attended to their needs and who they felt safe and comfortable around. Staff had received training and supporting on protecting people from harm. Staff understood people’s health and the action they needed to protect their health and wellbeing. Staffing numbers were monitored to ensure there were sufficient number of staff available and contingency was in place to cover any unplanned staff leave. Staff underwent recruitment and background checks to assure the registered provider of their suitability to work at the service. Staff competency to support people with their medicines was monitored regularly.
Staff had access to supervision and support and understood how to obtain a person’s consent. The registered manager had a process in place for when people were no longer able to make decisions for themselves. People were offered choice in the meals and drinks prepared for them. Staff understood how to escalate concerns about a person’s health and people felt assured they would get the help they needed.
People liked the staff and regarded them as their friends. People had access to regular staff who they felt understood their needs and checked they were happy with their care. People felt respected by staff who supported them to maintain their dignity and independence.
People were involved in regular reviews to ensure their care met their needs and preferences. People’s care was amended to reflect changing circumstances. People understood they could complain if they needed to and felt confident their concerns would be listened to.
People knew the management team and felt able to access them and discuss matters of importance to them. People’s care was reviewed and monitored regularly to ensure it met the registered provider’s expectations of care. The registered provider was exploring further ways of reviewing the quality of care people received and was hoping to expand the service further.