CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eden House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but the home needed to improve its checks and follow-up.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 16 October 2018. They spoke with all five people living there, the provider and manager, and contacted staff and professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines, recruitment, training, meetings, audits and other records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were kind, familiar and supportive. Care plans were personal to each person. People were encouraged to make choices, build daily living skills, cook, take part in activities and stay in touch with family and friends.
The home was rated Good overall, and Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were also rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because some checks had identified problems but action was not always taken quickly. Inspectors also found some cleanliness issues and gaps in medicine and refresher training arrangements.
Kind, familiar staff
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw positive relationships and staff offering calm reassurance.
“People told us that staff were kind and caring in their approach.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were encouraged to make choices and take part in cooking, cleaning, laundry and other daily tasks.
“People were supported to remain as independent as possible and make decisions regarding the care and support they received.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and life history. They were reviewed regularly.
“These contained a great level of person-centred detail and had been reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they contained the most up to date information.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to enjoy hobbies, use the community and maintain contact with relatives and friends.
“It was clear that people were encouraged to participate in activities and hobbies that were of interest.” from the report
Management checks did not lead to quick action
needs fixingAudits had started and could identify problems, but the home did not always act quickly enough to fix them. This led to the Requires Improvement rating for well-led.
“Whilst very few audits had been completed, they had been effective in identifying shortfalls, but remedial action had not been taken in a timely manner.” from the report
Medicine staff checks
needs fixingStaff did not always receive medicine refresher training, and competency assessments had not been completed for staff administering medicines.
“We identified that staff had not always been provided with medicine refresher training to ensure their knowledge in this area remained up to date and to ensure they were following best practice.” from the report
Some cleanliness issues
minorInspectors found some areas that were not adequately clean during the visit. The provider said daily checks were intended to identify and address this.
“We found some areas of the service were not adequately clean at the time of this inspection.” from the report
Overdue refresher training
needs fixingSome refresher training, including safeguarding and health and safety, had not been completed within the required timescales.
“We found refresher training had not always been provided within the required timescales for areas such as medicines, safeguarding and health and safety.” from the report
- 01Have all staff who administer medicines now had their competency assessed?
- 02Has the medicine refresher training planned by the provider been completed?
- 03How are daily cleanliness checks recorded, and what happens when a problem is found?
- 04How often are quality audits completed, and how do you make sure identified problems are fixed promptly?
- 05Which staff refresher training was overdue at the inspection, and has it now been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; it was the first inspection under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 December 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.
Every inspection of Eden House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 October 2017.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.