CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Edensor Care Centre (Diagrama Healthcare)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, safeguarding systems worked, and there were enough staff for people's needs. Medicines were stored and checked safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable induction and training. People received food and drink suited to their choices and health needs, and staff worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff were exceptionally caring and often did more than expected for people and their families. Care was personalised and supported people's dignity, independence and wellbeing.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Activities were tailored to people's interests and abilities, and end of life care was highly personalised. Care plans were being reviewed after the move to electronic records.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and approachable, and staff felt listened to and valued. Audits and improvement plans had helped address problems found at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Edensor Care Centre (Diagrama Healthcare) was rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring, and inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 6 January 2020. One inspector spoke with six people, three relatives, nine staff members and other professionals. Records about care, medicines, staffing and quality checks were also reviewed.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Caring. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff understood people's health needs, and managers had improved oversight.
Inspectors found especially kind and individual care. Staff supported people to stay independent, take part in meaningful activities and keep in touch with relatives. The environment was clean and safe, although some areas looked tired and needed refurbishment.
The previous inspection, published in October 2018, rated the home Requires Improvement and found two breaches of regulations. At this inspection, the improvements meant the home was no longer in breach.
Kind and personal care
Staff often went beyond what was expected to support people and their families. Inspectors saw a strong focus on dignity, independence and individual choice.
“Staff at all levels were exceptionally caring, and often went the extra mile to ensure people and their loved ones felt cared for.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities were designed around people's abilities, interests and life experiences. They helped people stay engaged and supported independence.
“The provider had created a service which ensured people had access to excellent activity staff who planned meaningful and engaging activity to promote independence and mitigate social isolation.” from the report
Safe care
Staff understood safeguarding and health risks. Medicines, infection control and additional one-to-one support were managed safely.
“People were supported by staff who understood the risks to their health and well being and how to mitigate these safely.” from the report
Improved leadership
Managers and clinical leaders had acted on earlier problems. Quality checks and action plans were being used to improve care.
“The registered manager and clinical leaders had worked hard to make improvements at the service and had robust action plans to continue to enhance people's quality of lives.” from the report
End of life support
The home worked with hospice and palliative care teams. Inspectors found detailed plans and creative support for people and their relatives.
“End of life care plans were exceptionally detailed.” from the report
Some areas needed refurbishment
minorThe home was clean and well maintained, but inspectors said parts of the environment looked tired. Refurbishment was planned and some work had already started.
“The environment was tired in places and needing refurbishment. However, it was clean and well maintained.” from the report
Care plans were still being updated
minorCare plans were being reviewed after the move to an electronic system. Inspectors had already identified that they could be more person-centred.
“Care plans were in the process of being reviewed and updated, following staff moving to an electronic care plan system and to reflect the person-centred care being provided to people.” from the report
Recruitment of qualified nurses
minorThe provider had found it difficult to recruit suitably qualified nursing staff. It had recruited two nurses from overseas and supported them with registration exams.
“The provider had experienced difficulty recruiting the right qualified nursing staff.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, and which areas still need work?
- 02How are care plans checked to make sure they are person-centred and fully updated on the electronic system?
- 03How many qualified nurses are currently working in the home, and how do you cover shifts when recruitment is difficult?
- 04How are activities matched to my relative's abilities, interests and communication needs?
- 05How are medicines audited, and how are any missed signatures or other errors followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 2020 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, January 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but important risks, cleanliness and management checks were not always handled safely.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 26 November 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive care. People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors also found improvements in activities, the environment and staff training.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Risk information was not always used properly, some medicines records were incomplete, parts of the home were dirty, and checks did not identify problems. The home had also been without a registered manager for several months.
This was the second consecutive Requires Improvement rating. The previous inspection in March 2017 had rated Safe and Well-led as Good, while Effective and Responsive had previously needed improvement.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and dignity. People and relatives said they felt cared for and supported.
“People told us that staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Improved activities
The home offered a wide range of activities, including links with schools, local groups and other care homes. Sensory activities were also taken to people who stayed in bed.
“The service had made significant improvements to improve the quality of engagement opportunities in the service.” from the report
Staff training
A training coordinator monitored mandatory training and arranged additional learning, including support for people with distressed behaviour.
“The training coordinator checked staff mandatory training needs weekly, identifying when staff were due to be trained and organising this so that they did not go out of date.” from the report
Recruitment and staffing
Recruitment checks were robust, and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's individual needs.
“Staff were recruited robustly and safely and extra care had been taken to ensure that those people interviewed could demonstrate the values of the organisation.” from the report
Risks were not always acted on
seriousRisk information was collected but was not always used to change care. Inspectors found examples involving distressed behaviour, pressure ulcers, fluid intake and a person's unsafe seating position.
“Some peoples identified risks were being monitored but this information was not used to mitigate and manage risk effectivity.” from the report
Medicines records and supplies
seriousRecords for topical creams were poor. Inspectors found that some prescribed creams had not been available for several days, and audits had not identified these problems.
“For one person who had been prescribed creams for dry skin, the cream had not been available for over five days.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousSome high-touch areas and equipment were dirty. Inspectors also found concerns about a catheter, communal pressure cushions, missing soap and shared hoist slings.
“Although there were daily cleaning staff working at the service, we saw that various parts of the service were dirty, particularly high touch areas such as doors, door handles, handrails, and some moving and handling equipment.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits were completed but did not reliably identify problems. The manager had sometimes signed them without checking whether the information was accurate.
“Governance systems in place to monitor the quality of safety of the environment needed to improve.” from the report
Care plans were hard to follow
needs fixingCare plans contained a lot of information, which was not always easy to find or consistent. There was limited evidence that people had helped plan their care.
“People's care plans were cumbersome and difficult to navigate through.” from the report
Activities depended too much on one person
needs fixingActivities were strong when the activity coordinator was working, but other staff did not always continue them on other shifts.
“Activities taking place were often dependant on when the activity coordinator was on duty.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording and reviewing risks for people who may become distressed during personal care?
- 02How do you check that prescribed creams and other topical medicines are available and recorded correctly?
- 03What changes have you made to cleaning, catheter care, pressure cushions and shared equipment since the inspection?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and has the manager's registration application been completed?
- 05How do you make sure care plans are easy for staff to follow and that people and relatives are involved in updating them?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with CQC reviewing care, accommodation, records, staffing and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 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 Edensor Care Centre (Diagrama Healthcare)
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Edensor Care Centre (Diagrama Healthcare) →
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Edensor Care Centre (Diagrama Healthcare) →
- August 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 December 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.