CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ebbsfleet House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had risk assessments and staff understood how to support them when they became anxious or displayed behaviour that could challenge. Inspectors found medicines records complete and accurate, and noted that restraint had reduced.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff received induction, training and support. People were helped to make choices, eat and drink safely, use healthcare services and build healthier routines.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and affectionate in appropriate ways. People were involved in decisions through easy-read information, picture cards, advocates and communication plans.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and up to date. People were supported to take part in activities, use local services, follow religious or spiritual needs and work towards personal goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, effective quality checks and good teamwork with healthcare professionals. There was no registered manager at the inspection, but the manager's application was being assessed.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some management and space points to check.
This was a planned inspection on 2 May 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, observed staff, spoke with the manager and four staff, and reviewed care, medicine, training and quality records.
The home supported five people with autism or a learning disability. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions. People were supported to become more independent, join community activities and work towards goals that had previously seemed out of reach.
Incidents involving behaviour that could challenge and the use of physical restraint had reduced since the last inspection. Medicines were recorded accurately, staff were trained, and healthcare professionals worked with the home to support people's needs.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found legal requirements were met and that care was consistently managed and person-centred. The previous inspection, on 28 September 2016, was also rated Good.
Growing independence
People were supported to take positive risks and achieve goals that had previously seemed out of reach, including shopping and community activities.
“Since our last inspection people had been supported to achieve goals that were previously considered out of reach.” from the report
Less restraint
The home had reduced physical restraint and other restrictions. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to support people in less restrictive ways.
“Since our last inspection, physical restraints for people had been reduced.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, respect and genuine fondness. People were supported to express their views and take part in decisions.
“Staff were kind, caring and used appropriate affection to people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included individual preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff used picture cards and other tools to help people understand choices and appointments.
“People had person centred support plans, that detailed their individual preferences and choices.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with healthcare professionals to support difficult appointments and improve people's health outcomes.
“Staff and the manager worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals to provide joined up working for people living at Ebbsfleet House.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. The manager had applied to become registered and the application was being assessed.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Crowded communal areas
minorShared areas could become crowded with people and staff. This sometimes made people anxious, although staff used the garden and sensory room to help.
“Communal areas in the house could become crowded with people and staff, which sometimes caused people to become anxious.” from the report
- 01Who is currently the registered manager, and what is the progress of the manager's registration application?
- 02How do you prevent communal areas becoming crowded and causing anxiety?
- 03How often are each person's care plans and risk assessments reviewed and updated?
- 04How do you reduce the use of physical restraint and monitor any restrictions?
- 05How will you support the person to take part in their preferred community activities and work towards their goals?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, including the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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, November 2016
Ebbsfleet House is rated Good; inspectors found warm, person-centred care, with some recruitment and notification records needing attention.
The inspection took place on 28 September 2016. Two inspectors spent time with all five people, spoke with staff and managers, reviewed care plans, records, medicines, staffing and safety information, and gathered feedback from relatives and health professionals.
The home supported five people with autism and learning disabilities. Inspectors found a calm and warm service where staff knew people well, promoted independence and adapted support to each person's communication, health needs, preferences and anxieties. People were supported to take part in activities, make choices and spend time in the community.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means the inspection found the service was meeting the relevant requirements at the time of the visit, although inspectors identified some issues for the home to address.
Individual support
Staff took time to understand how each person communicated and what helped them feel secure. Support was adapted to people's different needs, routines and interests.
“Staff were committed and worked hard to get to know people so that they could provide a service that suited each person” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to take carefully considered risks, prepare food, develop daily living skills and try new experiences.
“People were cared for and supported to develop their independence in a secure environment so that their confidence could grow.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities inside and outside the home, including clubs, walks, swimming, horse-riding and trips.
“People were encouraged to try new experiences and develop new interests to enrich their lifestyle.” from the report
Listening and improving
The home involved people, relatives and staff in its development. Feedback and complaints had led to changes to the fencing, building layout and garden.
“Several improvements had been made following feedback and complaints including new fencing, internal alterations to stairs and doorways and improvements to the garden.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
needs fixingThe provider had not followed its recruitment policy for one staff member. Missing employment details and references were being addressed during the inspection.
“The provider had not followed their recruitment policy for one staff member.” from the report
More choice about medicines
minorMedicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. However, the manager agreed to consider whether people could receive them in a way that gave them more control than going to the office.
“The registered manager agreed to consider if there was a better way for people to have their medicines rather than have to go to the office.” from the report
- 01Have all recruitment checks, employment dates, reasons for leaving and references now been completed for every staff member?
- 02How are current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations recorded and notified to the CQC?
- 03How can my relative have more choice or involvement in taking their medicines?
- 04How will you adapt support if my relative's anxiety, communication needs or routines change?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans, goals and activities?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, based on observations, discussions, records and feedback from relatives and health professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 November 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 Ebbsfleet House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.