CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eden Supported Services
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, detailed risk assessments, clean premises and safe medicines management. Incidents and accidents were reviewed so lessons could be learned.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support from trained staff and were helped to access healthcare. Inspectors identified a need for more varied menus and better evidence that people and relatives helped plan them.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity. Staff used pictures, gestures and other communication approaches, and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and regularly updated. People took part in activities, went out regularly and were supported according to their communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The acting manager carried out audits, involved relatives and staff in feedback, and reviewed incidents and accidents. However, the home had been without a registered manager since the end of May 2019.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Eden Supported Services was Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements needed to menus and management arrangements.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 September 2019. One inspector reviewed care files, medicine records, staff recruitment and training files, and management records. They also observed care and spoke with a relative, staff, a visiting care professional and the acting manager.
The home supported three adults with learning disabilities and could support up to four people. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed correctly, staff were trained and there were enough staff. The home was clean and risks were assessed and monitored.
Care was described as kind, respectful and personalised. People were supported with communication, activities, healthcare and making choices. Inspectors noted that menus needed more variety and better involvement from people and relatives, and that one person's lunch needed improvement.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection, published in April 2017.
Good safety arrangements
Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, enough staff and robust recruitment checks. Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely.
“Risk assessments covered areas of risk, people at risk, details of risk and the measures already taken by the service to manage the risks.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff who administered medicines had training and competency checks.
“People received their medicines as prescribed by their health professionals.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives and a care professional said staff treated people well and with dignity. Staff supported privacy and encouraged independence.
“Staff treat people with respect and dignity. I am happy with how staff treat people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered health, mobility, communication, religious and leisure needs. People were supported with activities and healthcare appointments.
“People's support needs were recorded in their care plans. Care plans were detailed and personalised.” from the report
Menus needed improvement
needs fixingInspectors did not see evidence that people or relatives helped prepare menus. They also said the food provided at lunch for one person needed improvement.
“However, we did not see evidence to show that people or their relatives were involved in the preparation of the menu.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home had been without a registered manager since the end of May 2019. An acting manager was running the home and planned to apply for registration.
“The service had been without a registered manager since the end of May 2019.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the menus since the inspection, and how are people's cultures and preferences included?
- 02How do you assess and review an individual's diet when a health professional says their lunch needs improvement?
- 03Is there now a registered manager, and if not, who has overall responsibility for the home?
- 04How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and making decisions about daily care?
- 05How do you use incident reviews and audits to show that improvements have been sustained?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; the previous Good ratings from 2017 were all retained. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 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, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, but identified gaps in money records, risk assessments and family communication.
This was an announced inspection on 28 February 2017. Inspectors reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff files, training records, medicine records and health and safety records. They spoke with the manager, a member of staff and one person using the service, then spoke with two relatives by telephone.
The home supported up to five adults with learning disabilities, with three people living there at the time. Inspectors found people were safe, received their medicines correctly and had enough staff and trained support. Staff respected privacy, promoted independence and supported people with health, food, activities and personal choices.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors still found areas needing improvement. These included the way people's money was recorded, incomplete risk assessments, missing emergency evacuation plans at the time of the visit, an inaccessible complaints procedure and too few updates for some relatives.
The home had previously been rated Good in December 2015. This inspection was brought forward after concerns from the local authority about management. Inspectors found that action had been taken on several of those concerns, with further work still needed.
Safe medicines
Medicines were securely stored, checked and recorded. Inspectors found that people received them at the right times and as prescribed.
“People's medicines were managed safely by staff working at the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's health needs, preferences, histories, food choices and activities. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“People's care plans were personalised and contained information about all aspects of their life and histories.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff respected people's privacy, listened to them and encouraged them to do as much as possible for themselves.
“They promoted people's independence and encouraged them to do as much as possible for themselves.” from the report
Training and support
Staff had training in areas including safeguarding, autism, infection control and challenging behaviour. They also received supervision and appraisals.
“The provider had a training programme in place for all staff to complete whilst they were employed at the service.” from the report
Money records
seriousTwo retailer receipts for expensive personal purchases had been lost and replaced with handwritten receipts. Inspectors recommended a stronger system to protect people from financial abuse.
“We recommend the provider ensures a more robust system is in place to manage people's finances that protects them from financial abuse and staff are provided with guidance on managing people's money more safely.” from the report
Risk assessments
needs fixingRisk assessments did not always cover all of people's health risks. Inspectors gave hay fever and the related medicines as an example.
“We recommend that a more current risk assessment is developed for all people in the service.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
seriousPeople did not have individual emergency evacuation plans at the time of the inspection. A fire exit gate was also locked, so advice from the fire brigade was requested.
“However, we found people did not have a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) in place to ensure they were evacuated safely according to their individual needs.” from the report
Family communication
needs fixingSome relatives said they did not receive enough updates about their family members. Inspectors recommended more frequent contact.
“I don't think they call me often enough to tell me about [my family member].” from the report
Complaints information
needs fixingThe complaints procedure was not adapted into an easy-to-read format. Relatives were unsure how to make a formal complaint.
“However, we noted that the formal complaints procedure was not adapted to make it easier for people to read and follow.” from the report
- 01How are people's money and receipts now checked, recorded and protected?
- 02Have all current risk assessments been updated to include every person's health conditions and medicines?
- 03Do all residents now have individual Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans, and has the fire brigade advised on the locked side gate?
- 04How often will relatives receive updates about their family member's progress and health?
- 05Can you show us the easy-to-read complaints procedure and explain how a formal complaint is handled?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors reviewed three people's records and spoke with one person and two relatives. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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 Eden Supported Services
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 August 2014.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Redbridge
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 £1,250 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.