CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eilat
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitor safety, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured by the home's COVID-19 infection control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 March 2021. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic.
The home was clean and free from clutter. It had cleaning schedules, up-to-date infection control policies, regular audits and enough personal protective equipment. Staff and residents were tested regularly.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were kept safe, people were admitted safely, PPE was used properly and outbreaks could be prevented or managed. The home had a plan to isolate floors if an outbreak happened.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of the quality of care, so the report does not give an overall Good or Inadequate rating.
Clean environment
The home was clean, uncluttered and had detailed daily cleaning schedules.
“The service was clean and free from clutter. The service had comprehensive cleaning schedules in place for day to day cleaning.” from the report
Family visiting
The home provided planned visits in a conservatory, with testing, temperature checks and PPE for visitors. Families could also keep in touch by video call or telephone.
“Families and carers could book visits to see their relatives in the conservatory.” from the report
Testing and PPE
Residents and staff were tested regularly, and PPE was available for visitors. Staff had extra training in COVID-19 awareness and infection prevention.
“The service participated in the whole home testing programme, this meant people living in the home were tested for COVID-19 every 28 days.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had a contingency plan for a COVID-19 outbreak, including the ability to isolate floors.
“The service had a contingency plan in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the home's current visiting arrangements, and have they changed since the March 2021 inspection?
- 02How would the home isolate floors and manage residents and staff if there was an infection outbreak?
- 03What infection prevention and control audits are being completed now, and who reviews them?
- 04What testing arrangements are currently in place for residents and staff?
- 05Has the home had a later full inspection covering caring, effectiveness, responsiveness and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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 2018
Rated Good, with Outstanding effective care; inspectors found strong rehabilitation and kind support, with some staff vacancies.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 15 and 20 February 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative, staff, the manager and health and social care professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, accident records, complaints and audits.
The home supports up to six people who have experienced a head injury or neurological condition affecting their mental health. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices. Staff helped people build independence, use community services and maintain relationships.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Outstanding because people achieved strong rehabilitation outcomes and the home worked closely with health and social care professionals.
Strong rehabilitation
People made significant progress, including improved communication, cognitive processing and independence. Some people needed less support than originally expected.
“People received effective support that enabled their rehabilitation, for example, improved cognitive processing and communication and increased independence.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home kept in close contact with health and social care professionals and acted on their advice. Inspectors saw this during a person's health relapse.
“There were strong links with health and social care services.” from the report
Respect and privacy
Staff treated people as adults, respected their privacy and supported them to make choices. People were also helped to regain everyday skills.
“Staff respected and upheld people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to follow individual interests, attend education and use community facilities. Staff also helped people keep in touch with family and friends.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities and education.” from the report
Staff vacancies and turnover
minorThere were three staff vacancies, and a relative mentioned staff turnover. The home used agency workers to cover rota gaps, and inspectors found there were enough staff during the inspection.
“There were three staff vacancies, which had been advertised.” from the report
Quality surveys had not yet been sent
minorThe home had not sent quality assurance surveys since the current provider took ownership. It planned to do this after building renovations were complete.
“There had been no surveys since the current provider took ownership, but it was envisaged that one would be sent out when the building renovations were complete.” from the report
- 01How many of the three staff vacancies have now been filled, and how often are agency workers used?
- 02What specialist experience and training do staff have in supporting people with head injuries or neurological conditions?
- 03How will you measure and share my relative's rehabilitation goals and progress?
- 04Have the quality assurance surveys now been completed, and what did people, relatives and professionals say?
- 05How would my relative manage the stairs, as the building has no lift and bedrooms are on three floors?
This was a routine comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; it was the first inspection under the home's current registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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 Eilat
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 November 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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.