CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eagle House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks, medicines, safeguarding, recruitment and infection control were managed well overall. Staff feedback about whether there were enough staff at busy times was mixed, so managers agreed to monitor staffing and deployment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support from trained staff, had their health and nutrition needs monitored, and were supported with consent and decision-making. The home worked with health professionals and adapted its environment for people with dementia.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, kindness, dignity and respect, while offering choices and supporting independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. The home offered activities, supported relationships and provided compassionate end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team understood its responsibilities, staff morale was reported to be good, and regular audits were used to check quality and safety. Some monitoring documents needed better storage, which the manager addressed straightaway.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some staffing concerns at busy times.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 1 and 3 July 2019. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people received personalised care, medicines as prescribed, and support from trained and attentive staff.
The home was clean and risks were generally assessed and managed. Inspectors asked for some window restrictors to be made more robust, and the provider acted straightaway. Staff gave mixed views about staffing levels at busy times, so managers agreed to keep this under review.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 30 December 2016. This means inspectors found the service consistently met the standards they checked, but it does not mean that every aspect was perfect.
Kind and attentive staff
Inspectors found staff to be patient, kind and supportive. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care they received.
“Staff were very patient, kind and supportive with people.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's preferences and interests, and care plans were updated when needs changed. Activities were planned around people's life histories and interests.
“Staff were knowledgeable about people and had a good understanding of their preferences and interests; this enabled them to provide personalised care.” from the report
Good support for health and wellbeing
People had access to health and social care professionals. The home also supported nutrition, hydration and compassionate end of life care.
“People had access to a range of health and social care professionals.” from the report
Positive management and improvement
Inspectors found regular checks of quality and safety, and managers acted on issues raised during the inspection. Staff and relatives described the home as well-managed.
“There was a quality assurance system and regular audits were conducted to check on the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingStaff gave mixed feedback about whether there were enough staff when several people needed help at once. Managers agreed to keep staffing levels and deployment under review.
“We received mixed feedback from staff about whether there were enough staff, particularly at busy times of the day” from the report
Window restrictors
minorInspectors asked the provider to re-check window restrictors against guidance. The provider made adjustments to a small number of windows during the inspection.
“The provider did this straightaway and made some adjustments on a small number of windows.” from the report
Storage of monitoring records
minorSome monitoring documentation was not stored as securely as it could have been. The manager addressed this immediately after inspectors raised it.
“People's personal information was generally stored securely, but we discussed improving the storage arrangements for some monitoring documentation.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally available at the busiest times of the day, and how do you respond when several people need help at once?
- 02What changes were made to the window restrictors, and how are they now checked?
- 03How are monitoring documents stored securely now?
- 04How will you make sure care plans continue to reflect changes in a person's needs and preferences?
- 05What activities and community visits would be suitable for my relative's interests and life history?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care quality, safety, the environment and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with a few minor systems needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 and 2 December 2016. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, clean surroundings and care plans that reflected people's needs. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices and offered activities and links with the local community.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Earlier problems with staffing, cleanliness, the environment and management checks had been addressed. Inspectors still noted a few minor improvements needed in risk assessments, medicines records and management information.
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs. Recruitment checks, induction and ongoing training were in place.
“We saw there were enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them patiently. Inspectors saw privacy, dignity and personal choices being respected.
“We saw people's privacy, dignity and human rights were respected.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories, abilities and support needs. They were reviewed monthly and updated when needs changed.
“The care plans were person-centred and included what was important to the person, how best to support them, likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Activities and community access
The home had employed an activity co-ordinator and offered a wider range of group and individual activities, including outings into the community.
“We found significant improvements had been made to the range of activities provided to people in the service” from the report
Improved environment
Inspectors found the home cleaner, fresher and more comfortable than before. There had been redecoration, refurbishment and improvements to cleaning systems.
“All areas seen were very tidy, clean and fresh.” from the report
Pressure damage risk tool
needs fixingThe tool used to assess the risk of pressure damage did not give staff a clear risk rating. Managers had identified this and were looking for a replacement tool.
“We found the risk tool used to identify people's risk of sustaining pressure damage was limited and did not provide staff with a clear risk rating.” from the report
Minor medicines recording issues
minorA pharmacy audit found some small gaps, including witnessing handwritten medicines entries, recording fridge temperatures and carrying forward medicine totals for auditing.
“Some minor recommendations were made, such as, ensuring handwritten entries on the medication administration records (MARs) were always witnessed by a second member of staff to ensure accuracy.” from the report
Management information
needs fixingClinical audit results were not included in the weekly report sent to the provider. The manager said the report would be reviewed to include this information.
“Although the management team completed clinical audits on areas such as falls, weight loss monitoring, the number of pressure ulcers, hospital admissions and infection rates, this information was not currently included in the weekly provider report.” from the report
Rota records
minorExtra direct care hours worked by managers were not shown on the staff rota. Inspectors advised that these hours should be recorded to evidence the staffing available.
“We found these hours were not detailed on the staff rota and advised they were included, to evidence the additional hours provided to support people's care.” from the report
- 01What replacement pressure damage risk assessment tool is now being used, and how are people's risks reviewed?
- 02Have the medicines audit recommendations been completed, including witnessing handwritten MAR entries and checking fridge temperatures?
- 03Are managers' extra direct care hours now recorded on the staff rota?
- 04How are clinical audit results, such as falls, weight loss and pressure ulcers, reported to the provider?
- 05How will you involve my relative in reviewing their care plan, activities and healthcare needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Eagle House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 September 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,300 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.