CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Edenmore Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control plans for the new five-bed wing, with a concern about shared facilities.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 December 2020. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
The inspection covered a separate five-bed wing, which was empty at the time. Inspectors found clear plans for staffing, cleaning, testing, personal protective equipment and safe admissions.
The home was assured in all the infection control areas checked. These included visitors, shielding, social distancing, use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Clear safety planning
The home had plans for using the separate wing safely, including a separate entrance and staff team.
“There were clear plans and policies about how the wing would be used to keep people safe.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors found arrangements for regular testing, social distancing, safe admissions and managing possible outbreaks.
“There were regular people and staff testing programmes in place.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had training in putting on and removing protective equipment, and supplies were available around the wing.
“There were good stocks of all personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Clean and separate facilities
The rooms were clean, with separate arrangements for laundry, waste and clinical waste. Equipment was to be provided separately and included in cleaning schedules.
“All five rooms were clean and had separate laundry, waste and clinical waste bins.” from the report
Shared facilities
minorNot every room had an en-suite and there was no sluice in the unoccupied wing if someone could not use shared facilities. The provider was consulting health professionals and said it would assess each person's needs before admission.
“Although not all rooms had an en-suite and there was currently no sluice in the unoccupied area should a person be unable to access the shared facilities” from the report
- 01How was the lack of a sluice in the wing resolved before anyone was admitted?
- 02How would you support a person who could not reach the shared bathroom facilities?
- 03Would the separate staff team and separate cleaning arrangements still be used?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested, and how are infection outbreaks managed?
- 05How would families be supported to keep in regular contact with someone staying in the wing?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control in a separate five-bed wing that was empty; it was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2021 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, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a weakness in call-bell monitoring being addressed.
This was an unannounced inspection on the first day and an announced visit on the second day. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, training, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, supported with dignity, and given care that reflected their needs, preferences and interests.
People were supported to eat and drink, access healthcare and take part in activities. Staff were trained and understood people's risks. The home had systems for medicines, safeguarding and quality checks.
One person said call bells were not always answered promptly. Inspectors found the call-bell audit was not robust enough to assure the provider that responses were prompt. The provider said stronger monitoring had been put in place during the inspection.
Kind and compassionate staff
Inspectors saw staff build warm relationships with people, offer reassurance and respond sensitively when people were distressed.
“Staff engaged with people with kindness and compassion and shared warm interactions.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's histories, preferences, routines, risks and interests. Staff used this information to shape daily support.
“People's support was planned in partnership with them and their families in a way that suited the individual.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff received an in-depth induction, ongoing training and support. Inspectors found staff had the skills and knowledge needed to meet people's needs.
“People received effective care and treatment from competent, knowledgeable and skilled staff who had the relevant qualifications and skills to meet their needs.” from the report
Activities and community life
The home supported people to continue hobbies, take part in activities and visit local places where possible.
“People were enabled to live as full a life as possible.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits and visits to identify gaps and improvements. Care records and incidents were reviewed.
“Audits were used to continually review and improve the service.” from the report
Call-bell response monitoring
needs fixingOne person said call bells were not always answered promptly. Inspectors said the existing audit was not robust enough to confirm that responses were prompt, although stronger monitoring was introduced during the inspection.
“We discussed with the provider that their call bell audit was not robust.” from the report
Management change
minorThe registered manager was not working at the home and had applied to deregister. A management team was running the home while an application for a new registered manager was being prepared.
“In the absence of a registered manager the provider had put in place a management team to ensure the safe running of the service.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells answered now, and how do you record and review response times?
- 02Who is currently responsible for the home while the new registered manager application is being processed?
- 03What concerns had been identified with medicines, and what has changed with the GP surgery and supplying pharmacist?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan, preferences and dementia support?
- 05How would you support my relative's end-of-life wishes if their needs change?
This was a scheduled comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
Every inspection of Edenmore Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- January 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 February 2016.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.