We carried out a review of the data available to us about Eothen Residential Homes - Gosforth 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 Eothen Residential Homes - Gosforth, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Sufficient stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) were available and this was appropriately stored. Staff had been trained in how to use PPE safely to reduce the risk of cross contamination and spread of infection.
Systems were in place to check staff competencies in relation to the safe use of PPE. This included managers carrying out observations of staff practice and of testing staff on their knowledge.
Audits were carried out to review infection control within the home. This enabled action to be taken if any issues were identified.
Enhanced cleaning schedules had been introduced since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This ensured regularly touched surfaces were cleaned throughout the day.
Infection control policies and procedures were in place. Information was available for staff to reference should they need any information.
Systems were in place to support people to maintain contact with people important to them. Where face to face visits were unable to take place, technology was available to support people to remain in contact with their family and friends. This helped to minimise the impact of the pandemic on people’s wellbeing.
Eothen Residential Homes - Gosforth is a residential care home which provides older people with personal care. The home can accommodate up to 37 people. On the day of our inspection visit, 35 people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and their relatives told us the care was safe and they were happy at the service. Medicines were managed safely using a new electronic system. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. People were protected from abuse by staff who understood how to identify and report concerns. Risk assessments were in place to ensure staff knew how to keep people safe.
Senior staff carried out detailed assessments of need to ensure the home could effectively support any new admissions. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and staff were trained to support people who had different dietary needs. Staff told us they were well trained and they were well supported and supervised by the management team. The service worked well with community healthcare partners such as the local GP practice to ensure people received healthcare support where needed.
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. On the day of our visit a prospective parliamentary candidate visited the home and everyone was encouraged to share their views about the forthcoming general election. We saw that people were encouraged and supported to vote.
Interactions between people and the staff team were positive and relatives also said they were made very welcome at the home. We spoke with relatives visiting their loved one on their birthday and the home provided a homemade cake and tea which they were delighted by. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs and preferences. People were supported to engage in activities to reduce their risk of social isolation. People were supported to express their spirituality, with whatever religion they chose to follow. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint, and those people we spoke with said they had opportunity, through regular meetings, to raise any issues they had.
There was a clear management structure and staff were supported by the registered manager. People's feedback was sought regularly and acted upon. We received positive feedback about how the service was managed. Quality assurance systems were completed.
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 09 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Eothen Residential Homes - Gosforth 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.
The service was last inspected in October 2015 when we had followed up on a breach of legal requirements relating to record-keeping. Prior to this we had carried out a comprehensive inspection in March 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and met each of the fundamental standards we inspected.
We found that people were safely cared for in a clean and comfortable environment. Measures were taken to identify and prevent risks to personal safety. The service had established processes for protecting people from harm and responding to any safeguarding concerns.
New staff were suitably vetted and enough staff were employed to provide people with safe and consistent support. Staff were trained and supported in their roles, equipping them to meet people’s needs effectively.
People were given appropriate support in maintaining their health and taking their prescribed medicines. A varied diet with choices of meals was offered and, where necessary, people were assisted with their eating and drinking needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The staff were caring in their approach and promoted privacy and dignity. Good relationships had been formed and staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences. People and their representatives were involved in decisions about the care provided. Their feedback about the service was sought and any complaints received were taken seriously and responded to.
Assessments and care plans continued to be kept up to date, ensuring staff had written guidance about the care each person currently required. People were able to take part in a range of activities and access the community to support them in meeting their social needs.
The new manager promoted an inclusive culture and provided leadership to the staff team. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and check that people were satisfied with the care and support they received.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 17 and 18 March 2015. A breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach of regulation regarding record keeping.
We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the revised legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to this requirement. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Eothen Residential Homes – Gosforth on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Eothen Residential Homes – Gosforth is a care home for up to 37 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 30 people living there. All rooms were en-suite and had direct dial land lines. Wi-Fi and computers were available throughout the home for people to use.
A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. 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.
We found the provider had met the assurances they had given in their action plan and were no longer in breach of the relevant regulation.
The standard of care planning and record keeping had improved. Care plans were person centred and updated since our last inspection.
This inspection took place on 17 March 2015 and was unannounced. A second day of inspection was announced and took place on 18 March 2015. We last inspected the home on 02 December 2013 and found the provider was meeting all legal requirements inspected against.
Eothen Residential Home Gosforth provides care and support for up to 37 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 30 people using the service.
All rooms were ensuite and had direct dial land lines. Wi-Fi and computers were available throughout the home for people to use.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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.
On the two days of the inspection the registered manager was not present so we were supported by the Chief Executive and two care co-ordinators.
The provider was not meeting the regulations for record keeping. Evaluations of care plans were completed which gave an update on people’s needs. We found that changes in care needs did not routinely lead to a new care plan and risk assessment being completed. This means people were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to report any concerns. There was a variety of posters and leaflets available and on display around the home which included safeguarding, whistle-blowing, advocacy and dignity.
Accidents and incidents were reported and recorded and information was analysed for any trends. Referrals to other healthcare professionals were made if needed, including contact the emergency services or doctors.
Health and safety risk assessments, checks and emergency plans were in place. Following a visit by the fire brigade personal evacuation plans were being developed. Staff knew what to do to evacuate should there be a fire and all staff had received training and taken part in fire drills.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff did not rush people and spent time with them chatting and engaging as well as offering relevant support.
Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place. This included a formal interview process and a ‘meet and greet’ were interaction with people was observed. References and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were completed before people were offered employment. The chief executive told us they were in the process of updating everyone’s DBS checks.
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff received competency based training from the pharmacy as well as from the provider. People and their doctor had signed documents titled ‘permission to administer homely medicines.’ This gave detail on specific over-the counter medicines which could be administered. The dose of the medicine and the frequency was recorded. Where people administered their own medicines checks were completed to ensure they were managing this safely.
People were cared for by staff who were trained and knowledgeable. Staff told us they could request additional specialist training if it was needed. Some staff had attended training in supporting people whose behaviour may challenge services.
Staff said they were well supported. We saw they had received regular supervision and an annual appraisal. New members of staff completed an induction period and attended a probation meeting to review their performance after they had been in post for three months.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We observed staff seeking people’s consent before they were supported. They actively involved people in decision making on a day to day basis. Where necessary authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were in place and these were being managed appropriately.
People’s nutritional needs were being met. People told us the food was very good and we observed mealtimes to be a sociable and enjoyable experience for people. Where people had specific needs in relation to diet, appropriate professionals were involved such as dietitians or the speech and language therapy team.
People told us they were very well cared for and we saw warm and compassionate relationships between people and staff. Staff treated people with respect and were very aware of maintaining people’s dignity at all times. Staff clearly knew people well and were able to respond appropriately to any requests for support and interaction.
People were involved in their annual reviews, as were their relatives. This was an opportunity to review all aspects of the person’s life such as relationships, socialisation and interaction as well as the care they received.
Many of the activities and events on offer had been suggested by the people living at the home. There were two activities coordinators employed. People had been instrumental in maintaining contact with one of the activities coordinators who had moved to another Eothen home.
Everyone we spoke with knew how to complain but said they had no reason to.
People thought the home was well-led. We saw care coordinators worked alongside care staff and they were well known to people. The chief executive was present and was visibly supporting the staff team whilst the registered manager was off.
Surveys were completed annually and involved people, their relatives, staff and external stakeholders. Staff were complimentary about the managers and said they were easy to approach.
Regular staff meetings had been held and these were used for information sharing and sharing best practice as well as for ensuring tasks were actioned.
A variety of quality assurance audits were completed and generated action plans. Action plans were reviewed and any completed actions were signed off as such. The chief executive completed reviews which included seeking feedback from people and observing staff as well as reviewing documents. An external consultancy agency called Dementia Care Matters had also been employed to complete a review of the home and this was scheduled for the week after the inspection.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We were able to observe the experiences of people who used the service. For instance, we spent time with people as they had their breakfasts and lunches and observed how staff supported and encouraged them. We saw staff encouraged people to make their own choices and decisions. We saw staff understood each person's different needs, for example, when they required additional support at mealtimes.
We saw that staff supported people to make choices about how they spent their day and the range of activities offered. People told us that there had been activities in the home if they wanted to take part. Some people preferred to go out. People told us they go out to church, on day trips, shopping and visiting their families. On the day of our visit the activities co-ordinator was there and had arranged an art and craft session.
We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. We saw that people had freedom of movement around their home and could spend time in their bedrooms whenever they wanted. We saw that each person had their own bedroom which was personalised. Each person had a choice to have their nameplate on the room door. We saw the provider had made suitable adaptations to meet the people's physical needs. We observed that staff respected people's privacy and knocked before they entered their rooms.
We saw that the staff communicated well and appropriately with people in a way that was easily understood. We saw that staff was attentive and interacted well with people.
We learned more about how care and treatment was provided when we talked with staff, observed their practices and looked at the records of four people who used the service. One staff member told us, 'Its teamwork and we all support each other.'
'I've been here for eighteen months. I very much love it at the home. It's like home from home. There are always lots of activities and they are always planned in advance.'
'On the whole it's pretty good, the girls are pretty good.'
'It's not a bad home, get well looked after. Anything we need just ask for it. If I am not well I just need to ask and they will contact a doctor.'
'I am very comfortable and secure here.'
'We have residents' meetings and can discuss things there about the home.'
The manager had carried out a survey of people who used the service and their relatives and external visitors. In the survey everyone said that the care at the home was very good and the people who used the service felt safe.
We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider had acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.
We found that people who used the service were protected and safe. We found that there was an effective infection control system in place and that the home had a clean and suitable environment.
We found that people who used the service had their care and welfare needs met.
We found that staff had been well supported to deliver care and treatment safely. We were able to speak with five staff on duty at the home. All of the staff told us they were well supported by their manager.
We found that people's views were important and listened to. We found that there was an effective complaints system in place.
People's independence had been encouraged, enabling them to do as much as they could for themselves. One person told us, 'The staff do everything possible for you. The care is excellent.' People's privacy and dignity had been promoted, helping to increase their confidence and self-esteem.
People's needs had been assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. One person told us, 'I'm mostly independent but when I need help I get it.' The care observation we carried out showed people received care and support which met their needs.
People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.
There was an effective complaints system available which people who used the service had been made aware of.