Eagles Mount Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were safe and protected from harm. Risks were managed well. There were enough staff who were skilled to provide care and support. People received medicines as prescribed. Lessons were learnt from events within the home. Infection prevention and control measures were robust. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us staff worked to keep them safe, relatives we spoke with confirmed this. Comments included, “Our loved one is unsteady on their feet so has this walking frame. The staff rang us immediately to tell me what had happened, they were very good.”

Events within the service were recorded and discussed to prevent reoccurrence. Staff confidently explained the actions they took following recent incidents within the service to reduce the risk of harm to people.

The manager reviewed accident and incident records, and the nominated individual analysed a monthly summary of these records. This process enabled the provider to identify trends.

People and their relatives told us the service referred to health and social care professionals to ensure people had the health care and equipment they needed to be safe. Comments included, “If you ask the staff to help, they do it. Our loved one has had falls, and they’ve been seen on camera which is brilliant. We know it's not anyone's fault and they’ve checked to see what they can do to stop it happening again, like getting the doctor in or a walking frame. We've been informed, there really is excellent communication.”

Staff we spoke with told us how they kept people safe. Comments from staff included, “We listen to what they ask and I look after them like a family member…if the resident needs something I help and if I can't help them the manager will help us get them what they need.”

We invited health and social care professionals to share feedback. Without exception, they told us people were safe. Comments included, “Eagles Mount Care Home have been engaging well with health care professionals and families on how to deliver good care. Patients are being treated with respect” and, “We have a partnership that has grown and developed in equal partnership. What I love about Eagles Mount Care Home is it’s really open, and honest.”

People’s needs, and care requirements were detailed within their care plans and risk assessments. A summary was available if the person went into hospital or moved to another care service. This supported continuity in care for people.

People told inspectors what being safe meant to them and knew who to raise concerns to if they did not feel safe.

Staff spoke confidently about actions they would take to keep people safe from potential abuse and neglect, including accessing support from the local authority safeguarding team. A staff member told us they felt, “Confident to approach Eagles Mount’s safeguarding champion”.

During our site visit we observed people appeared happy and relaxed with the staff who supported them. People were able to move freely and any barriers in place for the safety of others were appropriately risk assessed.

The provider’s processes demonstrated people were receiving the standard of care described in this quality statement. Safeguarding concerns reported to the manager were recorded in detail and reported promptly to the relevant external agencies, in line with relevant legislation. The manager had oversight of DoLS applications, authorisations, and conditions. This meant people’s rights were fully respected.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe, and their risks were considered. People felt involved in planning for their needs in relation to risks and keeping safe. One person told us, “I like to do as much as I can for myself. Staff come in to see if I need any help.”

Staff told us about daily tasks completed to keep people safe. These included fire safety checks of the environment and reporting any concerns identified so these could be rectified.

Care records we reviewed, detailed how staff supported people when they were distressed. Approaches were person-centred, positive and focused on learning about the causes of distress to prevent a recurrence.

Risks to people were managed and regularly reviewed to help ensure people were protected from avoidable harm and their wishes were respected. People had risk assessments covering all their care and support needs. Risk assessments were personalised, detailed and gave staff clear guidance on ensuring people were supported safely. Risks were managed using the least restrictive practices to ensure people were cared for safely whilst still maintaining their independence.

People and their relatives told us the service was well maintained and equipment they used was in good working order. People were encouraged to bring in their personal effects and belongings; they told us this was important to them.

The provider told us they were passionate about obtaining new, sustainable equipment and technology to consistently support staff to deliver safe and effective care. For example, bathrooms on the ground floor were being refurbished to include additional emergency call points following an analysis of incidents within the service.

The manager monitored and reviewed staffing levels to ensure staff were there when people needed them. We observed the home to have a calm atmosphere and there appeared to be sufficient staff on duty to support people without rushing and we noted call bells were responded to.

Staff understood and followed the service’s health and safety procedures. Health and safety audits took place regularly and any areas for action were addressed. Checks of the environment and equipment were undertaken in line with the provider’s policy and legal requirements.

People told us they were confident staff knew how to support them safely. One person stated, “I don’t see any problems with their competencies. They are all good at their job.”

Staff told inspectors they received an induction, support from their superiors and regular supervision. Staff received appropriate training which was delivered on both a face-to-face practical basis as well as being delivered through an online learning method. A member of staff told us, “Management encourage me so when I've felt not able or unsure, they have given me every training and teach me to be better.”

The manager monitored and reviewed staffing levels to ensure staff were there when people needed them. We observed the service had a calm atmosphere and there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs, including ensuring call bells were answered promptly.

The provider had effective processes in place to ensure staff had the necessary skills and competence to carry out their roles. Recruitment records showed staff were recruited safely. This included an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

People and their relatives told us the service was clean and tidy; they had no concerns about cleanliness. A relative told us, “Housekeeping are here unobtrusively keeping the home clean.”

Staff confirmed the service had identified clear roles and responsibilities around infection prevention and control, and stated they had received training for when and how to use personal protective equipment.

All areas of the service were clean. Housekeeping staff used appropriate cleaning materials and personal protective equipment to prevent cross contamination. Soap and paper towels were available to ensure effective hand hygiene.

There was a robust infection prevention and control policy in place. Cleaning schedules were available, and staff had a good understanding of these.

People received their medicines safely as prescribed for them.

Staff told us that they felt well supported with medicines management, and they knew how to report any issues. They told us they had training and competency checks to make sure they gave medicines safely. Staff confirmed medicines management systems worked effectively .

Records showed that people received their medicines safely as prescribed. There were suitable arrangements for the storage, administration and disposal of medicines. When medicines were prescribed to be taken ‘when required’ there were detailed and person-centred protocols in place to guide staff when these might be needed.