CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eldon House Care Services
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The report says people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, and infection control arrangements were in place. The Safe rating was carried over from the previous inspection, although infection prevention and control was checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was planned around their health, dietary needs and choices. Inspectors found improvements in capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and staff training.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate Caring rating. Inspectors described care as personalised and found that people were supported to make choices and maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and interests. People had opportunities to join activities, follow hobbies and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager promoted an open culture and used audits and checks to monitor care, medicines, staff practice and the home environment. Improvements had been made to care plan reviews and statutory notifications.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Eldon House Care Services rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 9 May 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found people were safe, their medicines were managed properly, and there were enough staff to meet their needs. People received personalised care, had choices about food and activities, and could raise concerns.
The home had previously been rated Requires improvement in 2019. Inspectors found that required improvements had been made to mental capacity decisions, activities, care plans, notifications and management checks. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Records were accurate and medicines were stored safely.
“Medicines administration records were in place and accurately completed.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose how to spend their time and take part in activities or hobbies that interested them.
“People were able to follow their own interests and join in planned activities.” from the report
Improved decision-making
The home had improved how it assessed people's capacity and recorded decisions made in their best interests.
“People had their capacity assessed where required and decisions taken in their best interests were documented in people's care plans.” from the report
Management checks
The registered manager used audits, spot checks and safety checks to identify issues and support improvements.
“The registered manager had systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Waiting at busy times
minorPeople gave mixed views about staffing. Although inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, some people said they sometimes waited for help during busy periods.
“Some felt there were enough staff and commented others felt they sometimes had to wait for staff to come to them at busy periods during the day.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people do not wait too long for help during busy periods?
- 02How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed, and how will changes be shared with staff?
- 03What activities and hobbies could my relative take part in based on their interests?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in decisions if they could not make a particular decision themselves?
- 05How do your medicines audits check that medicines are stored, given and recorded safely?
This was a focused follow-up inspection of improvements linked to Effective, Responsive and Well-led, with infection prevention and control checked under Safe; the Safe rating was otherwise carried over from the previous inspection and there was no separate Caring rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 June 2023 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 Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but weaknesses in records, activities, food choice and management.
This was the first inspection since the home registered in November 2017. It was an unannounced visit on 17 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, accidents and management records.
People were generally kept safe. Staff supported people to move around safely, responded quickly to call bells and managed medicines safely. People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring. People could also access healthcare professionals when needed.
The inspectors found important areas that needed improvement. Records about people's ability to make decisions were unclear, care plans did not always include personal preferences, activities were limited and people reported being bored. Food was liked but there was not enough variety. The manager had also failed to notify CQC about some DoLS outcomes, which was a breach of regulation.
The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently meeting the expected standard in all areas. Safe and Caring were rated Good. Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. CQC said it would continue to monitor the home.
People were kept safe
Risks were identified and staff followed people's support plans. The home was clean, and equipment was used safely.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicating kindly and supporting people's dignity, independence and everyday choices.
“We observed staff interaction with people, staff communicated with people showing compassion and kindness.” from the report
Medicines and healthcare
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. People were able to see healthcare professionals when needed.
“Medicines were administered, stored and managed safely.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. They said they felt supported by management.
“Staff received a robust induction and training which embedded their skills and supported their knowledge in providing care to people in a way that met their needs.” from the report
Unclear decision-making records
needs fixingRecords about people's mental capacity and DoLS status sometimes contradicted each other. This created a risk that people might not be supported correctly with decisions.
“The records we viewed contained conflicting information about people's ability to make decisions.” from the report
Limited activities and personalisation
needs fixingPeople had few opportunities to enjoy their interests and some said they were bored. Care plans did not consistently record people's likes and dislikes.
“There was very little in the way of activities and people told us they were bored” from the report
Limited meal choice
minorPeople received enough food and drink, but inspectors found that choices were limited and the menu was not varied enough.
“People told us the food was good but not varied in choice.” from the report
End of life wishes not recorded
needs fixingPeople were not consistently supported to plan for their end of life preferences. The manager said the paperwork would be updated after the inspection.
“These plans had not consistently been completed and this meant that people were not always supported to have their final wishes at the end of life.” from the report
Failure to notify CQC
seriousThe manager had not told CQC about the outcomes of DoLS applications as required by law. This was a breach and enforcement action was taken.
“The registered manager has failed to notify CQC of the outcomes of DoLS applications as required by law.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure mental capacity and DoLS records are clear, consistent and up to date?
- 02How often are activities now planned, and how are they matched to each person's interests and abilities?
- 03What meal choices and menu variety are now offered to residents?
- 04How do you record and review each person's end of life wishes?
- 05What steps have been taken to ensure all required DoLS notifications are sent to CQC on time?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions and was the first inspection since the home registered in November 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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 Eldon House Care Services
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 November 2017.
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 Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.