CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eastholme
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were managed safely, although some emergency information was inaccurate and out of date until corrected.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable support, training and healthcare, and were helped to eat well and remain independent. Inspectors noted that gender-specific screening was not taking place and some hospital passports needed more detail.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They knew people's histories, preferences and communication methods, and supported people to make everyday choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and covered people's needs and preferences. People were supported with family relationships, activities, communication and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive management, a positive culture and systems to monitor quality and safety. Relatives and staff said they felt included and listened to.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing correction.
The inspection took place over three visits in August 2019. One inspector reviewed care and medicines records, spoke with relatives, staff, managers and a healthcare professional, and gathered further feedback after the visits.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, kind interactions and care plans that reflected people's needs, choices and interests.
Inspectors did find some records that needed attention. Emergency information was out of date, gender-specific health screening had not been arranged or explained in the records, some hospital passports lacked detail, and two DoLS authorisations had previously lapsed. The manager corrected or began addressing these issues during the inspection.
Safe support
Risks were identified and managed while people were still encouraged to be independent. Medicines records were accurate and staff were trained before administering medicines.
“Risks were identified and managed, so people were kept safe whilst still promoting independence.” from the report
Kind, respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them with dignity, privacy and compassion. Inspectors observed friendly and respectful interactions.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff were mindful of people's dignity” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's histories, preferences, healthcare and support needs. Staff supported people to make choices and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“Care plans covered people's histories, preferences, healthcare and support needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to visit family, use local facilities and pursue individual interests, including horse-riding and disability cycling.
“People were supported to go out for meals and to use local shops and visit areas of interest.” from the report
Positive leadership
The home had quality checks, action plans and a culture where staff said they felt supported. Relatives said they were kept informed and included.
“The provider had a range of review processes to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Out-of-date emergency information
needs fixingSome personal emergency evacuation plans and medication information in the emergency grab bag were inaccurate and out of date. The manager corrected this immediately after it was identified.
“We noted information included in the PEEPs and medication records within in an emergency grab bag were inaccurate and out of date.” from the report
Health screening records
needs fixingPeople were not receiving gender-specific healthcare screening. The report did not find records explaining how this decision had been made or whether it was in people's best interests, and the manager began addressing it during the inspection.
“We noted people were not receiving gender specific healthcare screening.” from the report
Lapsed DoLS authorisations
needs fixingTwo people's DoLS authorisations had lapsed before the current manager took up the post. The manager made the appropriate applications and said effective monitoring systems were now in place.
“Prior to the new registered manager being in post the provider had allowed two people's DoLS to lapse.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that emergency evacuation plans and emergency grab-bag information are accurate and up to date?
- 02What decisions have been made about gender-specific healthcare screening for my relative, and how are those decisions recorded?
- 03How do you monitor DoLS applications and renewals so that authorisations do not lapse?
- 04What information is included in my relative's hospital passport, and how often is it reviewed?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in care plans, activities and decisions about support?
This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, with an overall rating and ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 September 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, February 2017
Eastholme rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some checks and training still being improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 13 December 2016. One inspector observed care, spoke with relatives, staff and outside professionals, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines, recruitment, training, records and maintenance.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean premises, appropriate healthcare support and warm relationships between staff and residents.
The inspection also checked improvements after two breaches at the previous inspection, concerning staffing and good governance. The new manager had made progress, although one recruitment check had not been properly followed up, some records were being improved and staff had not received moving and handling training because nobody currently needed help to move.
Warm and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with patience and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and found them to behave in a caring, patient manner, regularly asking people about their opinions on a range of matters.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's communication, preferences, anxieties and daily living goals. Staff used this information when providing support.
“We found care plans had been reviewed and improved by the manager and were person-centred.” from the report
Improving leadership
The new manager had introduced an action plan and improved care plans, emergency procedures, training checks and audits. Relatives, staff and outside professionals were positive about the changes.
“We saw the manager had implemented their own action plan since joining the service and had made good progress against this” from the report
Recruitment check
seriousOne employee's previous conviction had not been followed up with a recorded risk assessment before employment. The new manager assessed the risk promptly during the inspection.
“We found one employee had a previous conviction and there was no record of a risk assessment on the employee being carried out.” from the report
Moving and handling training
minorStaff had not been given moving and handling training. The manager said this would be provided if anyone's needs changed and they required help to move.
“We noted staff had not been given moving and handling training.” from the report
Records still being strengthened
minorSome recording systems were not yet robust. The manager had identified this and was changing the way hot water temperature checks were recorded.
“The manager had identified that this was not robust and was introducing a new means of maintaining these checks.” from the report
Outdoor activities
minorOne relative said outdoor excursions had reduced earlier in the year. They reported that this had been sorted out and that the person was now being taken out more often.
“It got sorted out and they are taking [Person] out more now.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and review risk assessments for staff whose recruitment checks contain information of concern?
- 02What training would staff receive if my relative needed help with moving or transfers?
- 03How are my relative's activities, including outdoor trips, planned and recorded?
- 04How will you make sure care plans, hot water checks and other records remain accurate and up to date?
- 05How will you involve me and my relative in reviews when needs or preferences change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions and checking progress against staffing and good governance breaches found at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2017 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 Eastholme
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2010.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.