We carried out a review of the data available to us about Eilat 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 Eilat, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
At the time of our visit the service did not have any people using the service that had tested positive for COVID-19.
The service was clean and free from clutter. The service had comprehensive cleaning schedules in place for day to day cleaning.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available to visitors in the service's main reception. Handwashing guidance was displayed throughout the service.
The service provided safe and effective ways for people to visit their relatives during the Covid-19 pandemic. Visiting arrangements were compliant with Public Health England guidance. Families and carers had been contacted by the service's staff about the service’s visiting arrangements.
The service’s conservatory was used as a visiting hub. Families and carers could book visits to see their relatives in the conservatory. Prior to visiting visitors had temperatures taken and a COVID-19 lateral flow test, this is a rapid test to detect COVID-19. Visitors were also provided with personal protective equipment (PPE).
Friends and family could video call people using the service at any time. Friends and family could also telephone their loved ones at any time.
The service had a contingency plan in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19. As a contingency plan, the service could isolate floors in the home. Staff told us they had not had to instigate their contingency plan.
The service participated in the whole home testing programme, this meant people living in the home were tested for COVID-19 every 28 days. The service's staff were tested for COVID-19 every seven days, this was supplemented by twice weekly lateral flow testing,
The service had systems in place to ensure staff isolated for the required period should they test positive for COVID-19. Staff breaks whilst at work were taken in the service’s conservatory and staggered to ensure social distancing.
To enable staff in providing care safely, staff had received additional training in COVID-19 awareness and infection prevention and control. This ensured they understood what actions to take in the event of people living in the service or themselves becoming symptomatic.
The service had comprehensive infection prevention and control policies. Infection prevention and control audits were completed regularly and included extra measures the service had put in place due to COVID-19. These audits were monitored by the local authority.
Eilat 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. Eilat accommodates up to six people in one building; there were six people living there during the inspection. People’s rooms are on the ground, first and second floors. There are no lifts. There is a small parking area at the front of the building.
Eilat specialises in supporting people who have experienced a head injury or neurological condition that has affected their mental health.
The service has a registered manager, as required under its conditions of registration with CQC. 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 at Eilat had complex and continuing health needs; staff sought to improve their care, and support by identifying and implementing best practice. The service had expertise in brain injury. People received effective support that enabled their rehabilitation, for example, improved cognitive processing and communication and increased independence. People had achieved better outcomes than had been anticipated when they moved to the service.
There were strong links with health and social care services. Professionals praised the way the service liaised with them and acted on their advice, leading to improved outcomes for people. We saw this in operation during the inspection.
People were actively involved, as far as possible, in managing their health and making decisions about it. This had enabled them to have an improved quality of life. Some people lacked insight into their condition but even so staff worked with them to build trust and involve them in decisions.
People’s independence was promoted and they received care and support tailored to their individual needs. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.
Staff treated people with respect and upheld their privacy and dignity.
People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities and education. They used community facilities and got the support they needed to go out and about.
Where people had difficulties with communication, staff were aware of their communication needs and supported them accordingly.
People were encouraged and supported to maintain relationships with people who mattered to them.
People’s rights were protected by staff who following the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff supported people to make their own decisions, and people’s consent was sought to their care and support. Where there were concerns about people’s ability to understand what they would be consenting to, staff assessed their mental capacity to give consent. Where they were found to lack capacity, staff provided the least restrictive care possible in people’s best interests.
People had their own individual menu plans. Staff supported each person to shop for and prepare their own meals and snacks. Healthy choices were encouraged, but people’s preferences were respected.
People were protected from abuse, neglect, avoidable harm and the spread of infection.
Medicines were managed safely.
The premises had a homely feel. They were kept clean and were well maintained.
Accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated and learnt from to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence.
There were sufficient staff on duty to provide the support people needed. Checks had been made when they were recruited to help ensure they were suitable to work in a care setting.
The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering. The registered manager and provider valued feedback from people and staff and acted on their suggestions.