CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Eaton Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and harm. Staffing levels, risks, medicines, infection control, accidents and the building were monitored.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported with eating and drinking, healthcare needs, choices and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respecting people's privacy, dignity, communication needs and personal choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed when people's needs changed. Activities reflected people's interests, complaints were acted on and end of life wishes were recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor and improve the home. A new electronic care monitoring system was being introduced.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Eaton Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 16 and 19 February 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, visitors and staff. They observed care and looked at care records, medicines, staff files, audits, complaints, maintenance and the building.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely and had personalised care plans. Staff treated people with kindness and respect, supported their choices and helped them keep in touch with family and friends.
At the previous inspection in January 2017, Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors had found problems with monitoring charts, records and checks. At this inspection they found these issues had been addressed and that care was being documented and monitored more effectively.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and dignity and responding to what people said and how they appeared to feel.
“We saw people were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, communication methods, life history and goals. Staff reviewed care as needs changed.
“We found people's care records were personalised and detailed their needs and preferences for their care and support.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found robust systems for ordering, storing, giving, recording and disposing of medicines. Controlled medicine balances were correct.
“We looked at the ordering, storing, administration, recording and disposing of medicines, which we found were robust.” from the report
Activities and family contact
The home offered activities based on people's hobbies and interests, including outings and reminiscence activities. Visiting was allowed and relatives were invited to meetings and events.
“The activities available were displayed on pictorial notice boards which helped people living with dementia understand what was available for them.” from the report
Some people felt staff were busy
minorAlthough inspectors judged staffing levels sufficient, some people said staff were short of time or that there were not enough staff. The home was introducing an electronic record system to free up staff time.
“The staff are very good, but sometimes they are a bit short of time” from the report
One monitoring entry may have been wrong
minorInspectors found ten monitoring charts reflected the care given, but were told one person's chart may have contained an incorrect entry. The manager said monitoring would continue.
“However, we were informed one person's chart may have had one entry which was incorrect.” from the report
Risk of social isolation
needs fixingMany people spent much of their time in their bedrooms, either by choice or because of their care needs. The manager was reviewing this and staff were encouraging people to use communal areas.
“The registered manager had considered if people were being deprived of their liberty and had taken appropriate action.” from the report
Some environmental work remained
minorOne bath had a rough area, and two sluices needed cleaning. These issues were dealt with during the inspection, and cleaning rotas were changed.
“During our inspection we found two sluices required cleaning.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that staffing levels give people enough time and support?
- 02What happened to the new electronic care record system introduced in March 2018?
- 03How do you support people who spend most of their time in their bedrooms to avoid social isolation?
- 04How do you check fluid monitoring charts are completed accurately?
- 05What activities and outings are currently available at weekends?
This was an inspection of the overall service and all five key questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2018 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, March 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but gaps in records, activities and management checks.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 11 and 12 January 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, checked care files and medicines records, and reviewed staffing, training, complaints and management documents.
People were generally treated kindly and with dignity. Staff had suitable training, medicines were handled safely, the home was clean, and people could access health professionals. The food supply was adequate and people were mostly positive about the meals.
However, records about people's fluid intake and welfare were not completed consistently. Inspectors also found that activities had reduced after staff changes, dementia-friendly signs and stimulation were limited, staff deployment needed review, and checks by management had not found these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. This was the first inspection under the new provider, and there was no registered manager in post.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw calm, respectful interactions. Staff protected people's dignity and involved them in decisions about their care.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Medicines handled safely
Medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. The medicines records inspected had only minimal omissions.
“Systems were in place to ensure medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received relevant training, supervision and opportunities to gain further qualifications and experience.
“People were cared for by staff who had received training which equipped them to meet their needs.” from the report
Food and healthcare
The home had adequate food supplies and supported people to access GPs and other healthcare professionals.
“People who used the service were provided with a wholesome and nutritious diet.” from the report
Incomplete fluid records
seriousFluid charts were not consistently completed or clear about how much people should drink. One chart suggested that a person had received no drinks for 24 hours, with no clear record to assess whether this was enough.
“one person's fluid chart had not been completed on the day of the inspection and showed the person had not had anything to drink for 24 hours.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits had not identified gaps in fluid records, other monitoring charts, incontinence aid checks or staff deployment. This was part of a breach of Regulation 17.
“There was a lack of an effective auditing system which ensured people's need were met.” from the report
Staff deployment
needs fixingInspectors did not find evidence that people had been neglected, but staff were not always deployed efficiently around the home. The provider was asked to review this.
“Staff were not always deployed around the service effectively to ensure people's needs were met consistently.” from the report
Fewer activities
needs fixingActivities had reduced after staff left and other staff had to cover shifts. Inspectors were concerned that people spending much of their time in their rooms could become isolated.
“People did not have a comprehensive range of activities to choose from.” from the report
Limited dementia-friendly signs
minorThe layout was clean, but signs and decoration did not help people living with dementia find places such as toilets and bathrooms easily.
“the décor and signage was not adequate to help them easily find areas of the building like the toilet or the bathroom.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingA manager was in post but had not applied to register with the CQC at the time of the inspection. This meant the Well-led rating could not be higher than Requires Improvement.
“Currently there is no registered manager at the service, they are intending to submit an application to the CQC for registration but at the time of the inspection, this had not been done.” from the report
- 01How are fluid charts now completed, and how do you check that each person's recommended fluid intake is recorded and met?
- 02What changes have been made to staff deployment since the inspection, and how do you check that people are not waiting too long for care or meals?
- 03What regular activities are now available, especially for people who spend much of their time in their rooms?
- 04What changes have been made to signs, decoration and stimulation for people living with dementia?
- 05Has a manager now applied to register with the CQC, and how are the previous audit failures being checked?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions and was the home's first inspection under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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 Eaton Court
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 June 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
12 live-in carers within about an hour of North East 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 £1,350 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 7 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.