EagleCrest

Updated 31 December 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider would be available to support the inspection. The announcement of the inspection was difficult due to commitments held by the registered manager, which delayed the commencement of inspection activity.

Inspection activity started on 13 November 2019 where we sought feedback from people who used the service. On 28 November 2019 we visited the office to speak with staff, the registered manager, review care records and information relating to the management of the service. Inspection activity ended on 29 November 2019 when we spoke with one person's relative.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection

We spoke with one person who used the service. We spoke with one person’s relative about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with two members of staff and the registered manager.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at staff files in relation to recruitment and a variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.

Updated 31 December 2019

About the service

EagleCrest is a domiciliary care service. The service is registered to provide care and support for older people and younger adults who may live with dementia or physical impairments.

Not everyone who used the service 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. At the time of this inspection EagleCrest was providing personal care to two people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

At our previous inspection we found areas of improvement were required. This was in relation to people’s being involved in shaping their care according to their wishes and overall governance. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made. Additional governance systems had been introduced to help improve the quality of care and support provided. We found these systems were in place, although some were still being embedded into daily practice.

People felt safe with the care provided to them. Risks associated with care and the environment were identified and assessed. There were enough staff to meet people's needs in a consistent and flexible way. Staff protected people from avoidable harm, were knowledgeable about safeguarding and felt able to raise concerns. Systems were in place to recruit staff safely. Staff administered people’s medicines when needed and managed them in a safe manner.

Staff received support to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. New staff received an induction and shadowed the management team as part of this. Systems were in place to ensure information to support people was shared and discussed appropriately with health professionals, where necessary.

Consent to care was sought and staff understood people's rights to make their own decisions. 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.

People told us staff were kind and caring. They had built meaningful relationships with staff and felt they mattered and were listened to. Staff were aware of the importance of promoting people's dignity and maintaining their privacy.

People's needs were assessed before they began to use the service and care plans were developed from this information. Care plans overall, contained information for staff to support people according to their needs. People and their relative said they would be confident to raise concerns with the management team.

The provider had further developed governance systems which enabled them to have improved oversight of all aspects of the service, although some further development was required. People, their relatives and staff members spoke highly of the registered manager and told us that they were always available and supportive. People were involved in the service development and staff felt able to raise their own views and opinions.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update:

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 16 November 2018). At this inspection we some found improvements had been made.

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled 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.