We carried out a review of the data available to us about Eastrop House and Lodge 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 Eastrop House and Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
Eastrop House and Lodge is a care home providing accommodation for up to nine younger adults who may be autistic or living with a learning disability.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We received information raising concerns about how staff administered medicines to one of the people supported at Eastrop House and Lodge.
We inspected the home on 8 July 2021. We found no general concerns with how medicines were managed, administered and recorded. With respect to concerning information we received, we found the provider had taken account of the person’s safety, wider well-being and individual preferences in how they supported them with medicines.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 13 December 2021).
Why we inspected
We undertook this targeted inspection to follow up on specific concerns which we had received about the service. The inspection was prompted in response to concerns received about one person’s support with medicines. We decided to inspect to examine those concerns and check there were no wider risks associated with medicines management.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at serious risk of harm from the concerns raised. Please see the safe section of this full report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Eastrop House and Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
Eastrop House and Lodge is a residential care home for people with a learning disability or autism. The home is a large detached building in keeping with other houses locally. The building had four en suite bedrooms on the ground and first floors and an annexe.
The home supports up to nine adults, at the time of the inspection there were six people living at the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We were assured the provider had robust infection control procedures in place, which staff were following, to keep people safe from the risks of COVID-19. There was enough personal protective equipment and staff were wearing this appropriately.
There was good oversight of quality and safety in the service by the staff team, manager and quality leads supporting the service. Staff fed back positively about the management team. The service worked with people to gain their views about how the service should run and how their care should be provided. People’s relatives had confidence in the management and felt involved.
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 13 December 2017).
Why we inspected
We undertook this targeted inspection to follow up on specific risks we had identified related to the service. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. The risks included: multiple changes in registered manager at the service and concerns over the culture within the home.
CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains good.
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.
This inspection took place on 9 and 10 October 2017. The inspection was unannounced, this meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.
The service had a registered manager who was on annual leave but came in voluntarily to support the inspection process. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. The deputy manager had been providing management cover to the home whilst the registered manager was on leave.
People were kept safe from harm and staff knew what to do in order to maintain their safety. Risks to people had been assessed and action was taken to minimise potential risks. Medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed. Arrangements were in place to receive, record, store and handle medicines safely and securely.
The provider operated thorough recruitment procedures to ensure staff were safe to work with the people. The registered manager had assessed the required staffing levels to meet people’s needs to be greater than those commissioned and ensured the assessed staffing levels were deployed.
People were supported by staff who had the skills and training to meet their needs. The manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were involved in making every day decisions and choices about how they wanted to live their lives and were supported by staff in the least restrictive way possible.
People were supported to have a healthy balanced diet and had access to the food and drink of their choice, when they wanted it. The physical environment was personalised to meet people's individual needs.
People were supported by regular staff who were kind and caring. People felt comfortable with staff and sought their company. There was a warm and positive atmosphere within the service where people were relaxed and reassured by the presence of staff.
People's independence was promoted by staff who encouraged them to do as much for themselves as possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs regarding equality, diversity and their human rights.
People were encouraged and enabled to be involved as much as possible in making decisions about how their support needs were met. Visitors were made to feel welcome and people were enabled to have contact with their family and those who were important to them.
The service was responsive and involved people in developing their support plans which were detailed and personalised to ensure their individual preferences were known. People were supported to take part in activities that they enjoyed.
Arrangements were in place to obtain the views of people and their relatives and a complaints procedure was available for people and their relatives to use if they had the need.
The service was well led. There was a clear management structure in place and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
In their efforts to work with the commissioners of care to accommodate people in crisis situations the provider had not always been able to complete effective transition planning which had led to one person being inappropriately placed. The provider has implemented new processes to ensure there is no future recurrence.
The safety and quality of support people received was effectively monitored and identified shortfalls were acted upon to drive continuous improvement of the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.