CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Eccleshare Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Eccleshare Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 14 December 2017. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicine records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable training, kind care, personalised activities and regular checks on quality.
This was a clear improvement from the previous inspection in October 2016, when the home was rated Requires Improvement and had breached Regulation 17. Inspectors said the earlier breach had been addressed and the necessary improvements had been made.
Staffing and safety
People said there were enough staff to meet their care needs and keep them safe. Staff had training on recognising and reporting abuse.
“People we spoke with told us that there were sufficient staff to meet their care needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Medicine management
Inspectors found medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Regular internal and external audits were in place.
“We found that the arrangements for the storage, administration and disposal of people's medicines were in line with good practice and national guidance.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people's emotional wellbeing and respected privacy, dignity and independence.
“We witnessed a lot of positive conversations that promoted people's wellbeing.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered varied activities based on people's choices and interests, including individual and group activities.
“Activities were varied and included, making soup, movement to music, a pamper afternoon, games, a singing session, a cheese and wine evening and one to one talking time with the activity champions.” from the report
Improvement since last inspection
The home addressed the earlier concerns about leadership, safety, caring and responsiveness. Its overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“At this inspection we found the home was 'Good'.” from the report
Door security
needs fixingOne keypad could be overridden by a person who knew how to do this. The home acted immediately during the inspection to make the door safe and update the code.
“However, although the home was secure one of the key pad devices used to help people to remain safe could be over-ridden” from the report
Confidential information
minorA medicine trolley was left unattended with one person's medicine administration information visible. The trolley was secure, and the home acted immediately after inspectors raised the issue.
“However, we did note during our tour of the building we noted a staff member had left a medicine trolley unsupervised.” from the report
- 01How do you check that staffing levels and the mix of staff skills remain suitable for the people living here?
- 02What checks now make sure doors and keypad systems cannot be overridden in a way that could put someone at risk?
- 03How do you prevent medicine administration records and other confidential information being left where others can see them?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed, and how are changes in a person's needs passed to the next shift?
- 05How are the six authorised DoLS arrangements and the 17 pending applications reviewed and kept up to date?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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, November 2016
Eccleshare Court rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff and good health support, but staffing, medicines records and management checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 October 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, staff files, rotas, medicines, complaints and quality checks.
The home was not consistently safe. There were not always enough staff available or deployed in the right way. Call bells could take too long to answer, and medicines records had gaps. Care records were not always up to date, and activities did not always provide meaningful stimulation for people living with dementia.
Inspectors found good support with food, drink, health care and legal decision-making. Staff were kind and respected privacy, but care was sometimes task-focused and people did not always receive enough emotional support. The home had a registered manager, but quality checks did not reliably find or resolve problems.
The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the home was not failing in every area, but important improvements were needed. It was in breach of Regulation 17 about good governance.
Food and health support
People had choices about food and received support with nutrition, hydration and health needs. Staff had information about special diets and risks such as choking.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough to stay healthy and they had their healthcare needs met.” from the report
Staff recruitment and safeguarding
The home carried out identity, employment, reference and DBS checks before staff started work. Staff understood how to report safety concerns.
“Staff were recruited appropriately and knew how to report concerns for people's safety.” from the report
Kindness and privacy
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw that people's privacy was respected and visiting arrangements were flexible.
“People were treated in a kind and caring way by staff.” from the report
Complaints handling
There was a complaints procedure, and the provider said formal complaints had been answered and resolved. No complaints were outstanding at the inspection.
“At the time of our inspection the provider confirmed there were no outstanding complaints.” from the report
Staffing and waiting times
seriousStaffing levels and deployment did not always give people timely help or enough time for person-centred care. People could wait for call bells, personal care or support to move to the dining room.
“There were not always enough suitably deployed staff at the home to ensure people's needs were always being met.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSome medicines records had gaps because staff had not signed to confirm medicines were given. Inspectors said this increased the risk to people's safety, although there was no evidence of harm.
“These shortfalls in the management of medicines records increased the risk to people's safety.” from the report
Care records and planned care
needs fixingCare records did not always contain current information, and inspectors were told that planned care timings were not always followed or recorded.
“However, care records did not always reflect up to date information.” from the report
Limited meaningful activities
needs fixingActivities could be rushed and were not always available consistently for people living with dementia or for people in their rooms.
“The range of activities provided were not always accessible or meaningful for all of the people who lived in the home.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's audits did not find all the problems inspectors identified. Issues that had been found, including medicines recording problems, were not always followed up to make sure improvements lasted.
“The systems in place to monitor the quality of the home were not robustly managed and did not reliably identify or resolve shortfalls in the way care was delivered.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now used on each shift, and how do you monitor call-bell response times?
- 02How do you check that every medicine administration is recorded correctly, and what happened after the gaps identified in this inspection?
- 03How are care records reviewed when a person's needs change, and how do you check that planned care such as repositioning is completed on time?
- 04What activities are now available for people living with dementia, including people who spend time in their rooms?
- 05What quality checks and feedback systems are now used to identify problems and make sure improvements are sustained?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five quality areas, including observations, discussions with people and relatives, care records, staffing, medicines, complaints and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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 Eccleshare Court
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 2015.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of 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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.