Archived: Eagle View 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

There was a learning culture within the service and improvements had been made following the previous inspection. People were referred to healthcare professionals when needed and had access to a GP. Safeguarding policies were in place and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Risks to people were assessed although there were some inconsistencies in people’s support plans and risk assessments. The environment was safe and clean, and there were enough staff to safely support people. People did not always receive their time critical medicines at the right time and as prescribed.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives told us they felt supported to raise concerns, and any risks or concerns were dealt with effectively. Relatives told us staff were aware of risks, how to respond to them, and managed these well.

Staff spoke positively about learning and improvements since the commencement of the new manager. One staff member told us, “I can confidently say that there have been significant and positive changes since [the previous inspection].” Staff confirmed they were able to openly raise any concerns they may have. One staff member told us, “Staff are encouraged by the manager to be involved in the meetings and handovers.”

Incidents were appropriately recorded, reported and managed. Lessons learnt were identified and handed down to staff in handovers, meetings and supervisions. Accidents and incidents were analysed to look for trends and themes, and actions were put in place in response.

People felt their views were listened to and taken into account in care-planning. People had regular access to health professionals involved in their care, and people were referred to other services when needed. One person told us, “They’re very accessible; staff and doctors.”

Leaders confirmed there was a weekly ward round with the GP surgery where people’s health needs were discussed and reviewed. The new manager was pro-active in making healthcare referrals and had improved the involvement of other professionals in people’s care.

Recent feedback from partners has been positive about the new manager and the improvements being made. Professionals have confirmed they have a good relationship with the new manager.

Processes and systems were in place to support safe transitions to other services and to incorporate healthcare advice into people’s care plans.

People told us they felt safe and happy living at the service. Relatives told us people were safe, and they knew who to contact with any concerns. Feedback from relatives included, “[Person’s] care is paramount to [the service]” and “I have never seen anything to cause concern.”

Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Staff knew what to do if they had any concerns and were confident any concerns would be dealt with appropriately. One staff member told us, “If I were worried about someone being a victim of abuse, I would follow our safeguarding protocol, which includes reporting my concerns to the designated manager immediately.”

We observed people being kept safe from the risk of abuse and neglect. We did not observe any safeguarding concerns. Staff were respectful in their interactions with people and attentive to people’s individual needs.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place. Safeguarding concerns were dealt with appropriately.

Relatives told us risks were managed safely and staff were competent in their roles. Relatives were involved in reviews of people’s care plans and supported to understand risks and how to manage these. People were supported to be involved where possible and a ‘resident of the day’ initiative had been introduced. This meant people were given meaningful one to one time with staff and supported to raise any concerns or queries.

Staff and leaders were knowledgeable about the assessment and management of risks to people. Staff confirmed they had access to people’s care and support plans and described these as, “fully informative.”

We observed risks to people being managed appropriately. We did not observe the use of any inappropriate restrictive practices.

Recognised tools were used to assess risk and assessments were updated regularly. Care plans were implemented in response to risk. Some areas of the care plans contained inconsistent information and not all medical conditions were managed with a support plan. The manager resolved this immediately following our feedback.

People did not raise any concerns about the safety of the environment. There were no environmental safety hazards impacting people’s use of the service.

Staff did not raise any concerns about the safety of the environment or access to appropriate equipment. Staff confirmed they had received recent moving and handling training and they had completed a recent fire drill.

The environment was safe. Medicines and thickening agents were stored appropriately. Hazardous chemicals were stored safely. The service was tidy and there were no obvious tripping hazards. Window restrictors were in place and in good working order. The building was secure.

Processes and procedures were in place to ensure the safety of the environment. The manager had oversight of health and safety and maintenance checks, which were completed and up to date. Fire drills had taken place, however, the recording was not meaningful and did not support effective learning from previous drills.

People told us there were enough staff on duty to support their needs. Relatives also confirmed that there were, "Plenty of staff on”. Relatives told us staff were competent and told us, “We have every confidence and trust in [the staff]” and, “We trust [staff] implicitly. All of them.”

Staff told us there were enough to safely support people. Feedback included, “Staffing is at a good level”, “This is the first home I've worked in that I'm comfortable in of not feeling like I'm rushed” and, “I believe there are enough staff to provide high-quality care. We ensure that staffing levels are adequate and adjust as needed.”

There were enough staff to safely and effectively support people. Staff were visible throughout the day and had time to interact with people. Staff were attentive to people’s needs and were competent in their roles.

Processes were in place to ensure there were sufficient staff on duty. On call arrangements were clear. Staff had received a good range of training and training compliance was good. There were some gaps in recruitment procedures. It was not always recorded why an applicant had left a previous health and social care role. Agency profiles were in place, but they did not record what mandatory training had been completed and when this expired.

Relatives told us the service was kept clean. Feedback included, “There are always domestics around” and, “It is very clean.”

Staff told us the service was kept clean. Feedback included, “Yes the cleaners do a very good job in maintaining the cleanliness of the home”, “The care home is very clean” and, “I do think that the home is kept clean at all times, there is always domestic staff available and care staff do their own cleaning as well.”

The service was clean and tidy. PPE was readily available, and staff were bare below the elbow to support good hand hygiene.

Cleaning schedules were in place. The cleanliness of the service was checked through audits and daily walk arounds.

People did not always receive their time critical medicines at the right time and as prescribed. This placed people at risk of harm.

Staff told us they felt competent to administer medicines. Staff told us they had appropriate training and competency checks. Leaders told us they had oversight of medicine administration via the electronic systems. However, staff did not always administer time critical medicines at the right time and as prescribed. Staff and leaders had not identified this.

Systems and processes were not in place to ensure people always received their medicines as prescribed. People did not always receive their time critical medicines at the right time. Audits and quality assurances processes had failed to identify this.