CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eastleigh House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and reviewed, safeguarding arrangements were understood and infection control measures were in place. They also followed up a recent choking incident involving unsuitable food and incomplete first aid training.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were found to follow mental capacity requirements, seek consent and involve people in decisions. The home worked with health and social care professionals when people's needs changed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection. The report noted that the new manager had started during the inspection week and planned to register with the CQC.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly safe, respectful care, but followed up a recent choking incident.
This was a targeted inspection on 20 May 2021. Inspectors looked at specific concerns about safety, safeguarding, risk management, learning from incidents, mental capacity and working with other agencies. They did not assess the whole service.
Inspectors found that people's risks were clearly recorded and reviewed. Staff had updated training after a recent choking incident. People were supported by health professionals, involved in decisions about their care and treated respectfully. The home was clean and infection control arrangements were in place.
The home was inspected but not rated at this visit. Its previous overall rating was Good, published in January 2020, and the report says that rating remained Good. The two areas examined were also previously rated Good, but those ratings were not reviewed in full.
Clear risk planning
Inspectors found detailed assessments for risks such as choking and behaviour. These included ways to reduce risks while using the least restrictive approach.
“People's individual risks were identified, and extensive risk assessment reviews had been carried out to identify ways to keep people safe.” from the report
Respectful relationships
Staff interacted respectfully and upheld people's human rights. Inspectors saw relaxed and friendly interactions, and relatives gave positive feedback.
“Interactions between people and staff were relaxed and friendly and people seemed happy.” from the report
People involved in decisions
Staff used personalised communication methods to seek consent and gave people time to express their wishes. Mental capacity and best-interests processes were recorded.
“Before people received any care and treatment they were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes.” from the report
Learning after incidents
The home reviewed incidents and updated care plans, risk assessments and staff training. It also involved speech and language therapists and other professionals where needed.
“There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home followed current infection prevention measures, including the use of protective equipment, testing and arrangements for visits.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Recent choking incident
seriousA person was given food that did not match their assessed needs. The staff member supporting them had not completed first aid training, although the report says the whole staff team had since received updated training.
“There had been a recent choking incident were a person was given unsuitable food which was not in line with their assessed needs.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no manager registered with the CQC when inspectors visited. A new manager had started that week and was expected to apply for registration.
“The service did not have had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01What checks now make sure each person receives food that matches their swallowing and dietary assessment?
- 02How do you keep staff training in dysphagia and first aid up to date, and how do you check staff can follow the guidance?
- 03Has the new manager applied to register with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home until registration is completed?
- 04How are changes in a person's needs shared with speech and language therapists, learning disability professionals and other health services?
- 05How will you show families that learning from incidents is being followed in day-to-day care?
This was a targeted inspection of specific parts of Safe and Effective; it did not assess the whole service, and previous ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 June 2021 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 Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with major improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 21 November 2019. Inspectors observed care, spoke with staff, relatives and a visiting health professional, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, detailed care plans and good support with health, food, communication, activities and independence.
The home had improved significantly since its previous Requires Improvement rating, published in November 2018. Improvements included staffing, infection control, care records and management systems. Some improvements were still being embedded, and refurbishment was continuing.
Improved safety
Inspectors found that staffing, risk management, safeguarding, medicines and infection control had improved. There was a stable core team who knew people well.
“At this inspection we found there was now a stable core team of staff who knew the people they supported well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people patiently and respectfully. They protected privacy and helped people make choices and build independence.
“People were supported by staff who treated them with patience, kindness and understanding.” from the report
Communication and choice
The home used pictures, symbols, objects and technology to help people express their wishes. Inspectors found this reduced anxiety for some people and gave them more control.
“Staff had a clear understanding of each person's individual communication preferences and were able to understand each person's requests and concerns.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in varied activities, including outings, meals, shopping and leisure activities. Support was planned around individual risks and preferences.
“People were now engaged in a wide range of activities both within the home and the local community.” from the report
Stronger management
The provider had introduced clearer accountability, audits and staff support. Staff said communication and management support were much better than before.
“There were now clear processes in place to ensure effective monitoring and accountability.” from the report
Large home
minorThe home supported nine people and was larger than current best practice guidance. Inspectors said the building and its setting helped reduce the possible negative impact, but this is worth discussing for someone who needs a smaller setting.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Effect of new admissions
minorAn external health professional was concerned about the possible effect of admitting new people on those already living there and on the available space.
“An external health professional expressed concern about the potential impact of any new admissions on the people already living there, and the space available to them.” from the report
Privacy issue found and fixed
minorOne person's bedroom window could be seen from the car park because it did not have frosting. The report says this was addressed by the second day of the inspection.
“During the inspection we noted that one person's privacy was compromised because there was no frosting on their bedroom window which looked onto the car parking area.” from the report
Improvements still being embedded
minorThe provider and management team had made substantial improvements, but inspectors said they were still working to make sure these changes lasted.
“The provider and management team were working to ensure the improvements were embedded.” from the report
- 01How many of the staff who supported people during the inspection are still working here, and has recruitment now finished?
- 02How do you make sure a new admission would not negatively affect people already living here or reduce their available space?
- 03What checks are now in place to protect people's privacy in bedrooms and other parts of the home?
- 04How is the new manager's CQC registration progressing, and who is legally responsible for the home while this is completed?
- 05Which improvements from the action plan are still being embedded, and how do you check that they remain effective?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, premises and management arrangements, covering all five CQC questions; inspectors also reviewed records and spoke with relatives and health professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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 Eastleigh House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.