CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eden House Residential Home I
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable safeguarding arrangements and current risk assessments. Medicines records were accurate and up to date, and accidents were reviewed for patterns and learning.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, induction and supervision. People received support for their health, nutrition and communication needs, with input from healthcare professionals when required.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions, emotional support and involvement in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual and changing needs. People had access to activities, information in suitable formats and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff promoted an open, caring culture. Audits were used to identify improvements, and the home had improved its handling of CQC notifications since the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Eden House Residential Home I is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improved management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with six people, three relatives, two care staff and the registered manager. They reviewed five care plans, four staff files, medicine records and other management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, good access to healthcare and support that respected people's choices and dignity.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection too. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement because the home had acted on an earlier problem with notifying CQC about certain events. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns at this inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels were consistently maintained. Staff had time to help people and chat with them without appearing rushed.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff were not rushed in their duties and had time to sit and chat with people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with kindness, dignity and emotional reassurance. People and relatives were involved in planning care.
“We observed many respectful interactions throughout our visit and saw staff promoted people's dignity by being discreet, thoughtful and caring.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with GPs and other professionals to meet people's health needs. Specialist advice was included in care plans where needed.
“The service worked closely with healthcare professionals, GPs and social workers and ensured people had good access to services to meet their healthcare needs.” from the report
Activities and personal choice
People were offered activities such as music, games, arts and crafts, trips out and seasonal events. Support was adjusted when people's needs changed.
“People were offered a range of activities they could engage in. Activities included; arts and crafts, music, and games.” from the report
Quality checks and learning
The manager used audits and staff discussions to find improvements. This included arranging refresher training and working with healthcare professionals about incidents.
“Regular audits were conducted to monitor and assess procedures and systems. Information from these audits was used to improve the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently make sure there are enough staff to meet people's needs without rushing them?
- 02How are medicines, risks and accidents checked, and how would you tell us about any changes affecting our relative?
- 03How would you support a person with dementia or changing communication, eating or mobility needs?
- 04How are relatives involved in creating and reviewing care plans?
- 05What quality checks and staff discussions are currently used to identify and act on problems?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas, and the report used a shorter format because the overall Good rating had not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home Requires Improvement in well-led arrangements.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 August 2016. The inspector spoke with three people, two relatives, two care staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care records, medicines records and records about how the home was managed.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support and suitable risk assessments. Staff understood safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act. People were treated with kindness and respect, involved in their care and offered personalised support and activities.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, effective, caring and responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the home did not always send required notifications to the CQC and did not provide requested information before the inspection.
Enough staff
People and relatives said there were enough staff. Inspectors saw that people were helped promptly and staff had time to talk with them.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staffing levels were consistently maintained.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew what mattered to people and supported them with patience, dignity and respect.
“People were cared for by staff who were knowledgeable about the care they required and the things that were important to them in their lives.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, health needs and guidance for staff. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were detailed, personalised, and were reviewed regularly.” from the report
Good risk and medicines support
Inspectors found that risks such as falls and choking were assessed and managed. Medicines were stored and given safely.
“People had their medicines as prescribed. The staff checked each person's identity and explained the process before giving people their medicine.” from the report
Important incident was not reported
needs fixingThe home did not notify the CQC about an incident in which a person injured themselves and needed hospital treatment. This led to the Requires Improvement rating for well-led.
“This incident was not reported to us.” from the report
Requested information was not provided
minorThe provider did not return the Provider Information Return before the inspection and could not remember receiving it.
“Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR).” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to make sure all reportable incidents are notified to the CQC on time?
- 02How do you check that information requested by the CQC is returned before an inspection?
- 03How will you monitor the improvements needed in well-led arrangements?
- 04How will you make sure care plans continue to reflect changes in each person's needs?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews and decisions about activities and support?
This was an unannounced inspection of the service's overall quality and all five key questions, including care records, medicines records and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 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 Eden House Residential Home I
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Eden House Residential Home I →
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Eden House Residential Home I →
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.