CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Eagle House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, infection controls and detailed risk assessments, although they made a recommendation about one commode risk assessment which was addressed immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on their assessed needs and choices. Staff supported people with food, drink, healthcare and their legal rights, and had training and regular support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff being caring, kind and considerate. People were involved in decisions about their care and were treated with dignity and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used audits and action plans to improve the service. Records were accurate and complete, and people, relatives and staff had confidence in the management team.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Eagle House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with one equipment risk assessment recommendation already addressed.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 15 November 2022. They spoke with people, staff and a visiting professional, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The home was clean, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and staff had suitable training. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and their personal choices.
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. Records showed improvements in food and fluid monitoring, the home’s décor, care planning and management systems.
The overall rating was Good. This was an improvement from Requires improvement at the previous inspection, published in January 2020. The provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were observed treating people with kindness and consideration. People said staff respected them and were happy with the care.
“We observed staff interacting with people and found they were caring, kind and considerate.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs promptly. Medicines were stored, given and checked safely, and staff were assessed as competent.
“We observed staff interacting with people and found there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs in a timely way.” from the report
Improved records and care planning
Food and fluid records had improved, and care plans reflected people’s choices and preferences. The provider had addressed the previous concerns about governance and records.
“Since our last inspection the provider had made improvements to records of the food and fluid consumed by people, the décor of the home, the caring attitude of staff and good governance.” from the report
Good management oversight
Audits and action plans were used to identify and address issues. People, relatives and staff felt the management team was approachable.
“A range of quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and improve the service.” from the report
Commode risk assessment
minorInspectors recommended improving the risk assessment for using a commode. The provider acted immediately by updating the assessment and informing staff.
“We have made a recommendation about the risk assessment for use of a commode.” from the report
- 01How do you assess and review risks when my relative needs to use a commode or other equipment?
- 02How will you make sure staff know about any changes to my relative’s risk assessments?
- 03How do you record and review my relative’s food and fluid intake if they are at risk of malnutrition or dehydration?
- 04How are people and their relatives involved in agreeing and reviewing care plans?
- 05What audits or checks will you carry out to make sure medicines continue to be given safely?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection prompted by a review of information and previous actions; the report gives ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led, but not a separate Responsive rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 2022 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, January 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe and responsive care, but concerns about nutrition records, inconsistent kindness and management oversight.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 27 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with seven people, one relative, nine staff and a health professional. They reviewed care, medicine and management records and observed daily life in the home.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Responsive. People felt safe, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and care plans were detailed. People received personalised support, activities and help to access the community.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective, Caring and Well-led. Food and fluid records for people at risk of malnutrition were not complete, people gave mixed views about how caring staff were, and some people did not feel involved in their care plans.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The home had improved since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of the staffing and person-centred care regulations. However, it remained in breach of the good governance regulation, and had no CQC-registered manager for about 10 months.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were trained to recognise abuse, risks were assessed and reviewed, and the home had enough staff to meet people's needs according to inspectors.
“People living at Eagle House felt safe.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were handled safely and records of medicines support were accurate. Staff were trained and their competence was checked regularly.
“Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans were detailed and person-centred. They gave staff clear guidance and were reviewed regularly.
“Care plans were well-organised and provided clear guidance for staff to follow, to help ensure care was provided which met people's needs.” from the report
Health partnerships
Staff worked with health and social care professionals to improve people's health, including diabetes and medicines management.
“Staff worked with other agencies to help improve people's health.” from the report
Incomplete nutrition records
seriousRecords of food and fluids were not comprehensive for people at risk of malnutrition. The provider did not have enough oversight to identify quickly when people might not be eating or drinking enough.
“Care staff were not keeping comprehensive records of the food and fluid consumed by people who were at risk of malnutrition.” from the report
Inconsistent kindness
needs fixingPeople gave mixed feedback about staff. Some said staff were kind and caring, while others said the quality of support depended on who was working.
“Some staff are caring, but some staff aren't. It depends who you get. It worries me a bit.” from the report
Limited involvement in care plans
needs fixingAlthough care plans included people's preferences, some people said they had not been involved in developing their own plans.
“No, I've not been involved in my care plan. Staff do it.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's checks did not cover all areas of care and did not ensure records were accurate, complete and up to date. This was a continued breach of regulation.
“The provider's systems and processes did not ensure staff maintained accurate and complete records of the care they provided to people living at Eagle House.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home had no manager registered with CQC at the inspection, and this had been the case for approximately 10 months. The provider said it was taking steps to recruit someone suitably experienced.
“There had not been a registered manager in post for approximately 10 months, at the time of this inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you now check food and fluid charts for people at risk of malnutrition, and what action is taken if records show someone is not eating or drinking enough?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure care records are accurate, complete and up to date?
- 03How are people and relatives involved in writing and reviewing care plans?
- 04What has been done to make care consistently kind across all shifts?
- 05Has a CQC-registered manager now been appointed, and how is the Regulation 17 action plan progressing?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 2020 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
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2016.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.