CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eventide Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines as prescribed and staff were trained, but records for as-needed medicines were not always detailed enough. The manager created a more accurate recording system during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff received relevant training and people had access to food, drinks and healthcare. Inspectors noted that shared bathrooms did not provide a relaxing environment or fully meet sensory needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- A separate rating for Caring was not given in this report. Inspectors found that staff supported people patiently, respected their choices and helped them maintain independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- A separate rating for Responsive was not given in this report. Care was adapted to people's preferences, including flexible night-time checks and support to go out safely.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was well managed, with clear staff roles, regular trustee quality checks and opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give feedback. Inspectors said concerns were investigated and acted on promptly.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but records for as-needed medicines needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced. Inspectors visited on 30 May 2023 and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff records and other service records. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good, and these ratings remained unchanged from the previous inspection in 2018. People were described as safe, well supported and involved in decisions about their care.
Inspectors found some areas to improve. Records for as-needed medicines did not always show the time given, the reason for giving them or whether they worked. The manager created a new recording system during the inspection. Recommendations were also made about shared bathrooms, sensory needs and training on supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their individual needs. People said staff responded quickly when they used their call bells or asked for help.
“There were enough staff to support people and meet their individual needs.” from the report
Patient, respectful support
Staff supported people at their own pace and respected their personal choices. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to remain independent.
“We observed staff supporting people to move around with patience and at a pace that was led by the person.” from the report
Good management
The manager, assistant managers and trustees had clear roles and used visits, meetings and audits to check the service. Staff and relatives described improvements in how the home was organised and managed.
“Trustees of the organisation made regular quality assurance visits to monitor how the service was operating.” from the report
Good food and hydration
People said they ate well and were offered choices. Inspectors saw that people had easy access to drinks during a particularly hot day.
“People were complimentary about the meals provided at the service. They told us they ate well and were offered choices.” from the report
As-needed medicines
needs fixingRecords did not consistently show when as-needed medicines were given, why they were given or whether they worked. This created a risk that doses could be given too close together, although the manager introduced a new recording system during the inspection.
“Staff did not consistently record at what time PRN medicines were administered; this meant there was a risk of administering doses without leaving the recommended gap.” from the report
Swallowing risk record
needs fixingOne person's swallowing difficulty had been assessed by specialists, but there was initially no related risk assessment. The manager created one during the inspection and told staff about the updated information.
“There was no risk assessment in place in respect of this.” from the report
Shared bathrooms
minorThe shared bathrooms worked but were not a relaxing environment and did not take people's sensory needs into account. Inspectors recommended seeking advice about improving this.
“Shared bathrooms were functional but did not provide a relaxing environment or take into account people's sensory needs.” from the report
Some staff training
minorTraining on supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability was not in place at the time of inspection. The manager said appropriate training would be sourced.
“This training was not in place at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording the time, reason and outcome when as-needed medicines are given?
- 02What action has been taken to complete and review risk assessments for people with swallowing difficulties?
- 03What improvements are planned for the shared bathrooms and people's sensory needs?
- 04Has training on supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability now been completed?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care, night-time checks and service improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the care provided, the premises and infection prevention and control; Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated, while separate Caring and Responsive ratings were not given in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control overall, with a shortfall in social distancing during staff breaks that was promptly addressed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19-related staff pressures were affecting care. Inspectors spoke with five people and later with two relatives.
The home was managing a COVID-19 outbreak. Staff absences had not affected staffing levels or the quality of support. PPE, testing, extra cleaning and changes to daily routines were in place. Visiting followed the guidance in force at the time, although visits from other visitors were temporarily stopped.
Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements, including PPE, testing, admissions, cleaning, outbreak management and the infection control policy. They were only somewhat assured about shielding and social distancing because staff breaks did not always maintain distancing. The manager addressed this promptly.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a Good, Requires improvement or other quality rating. It was a focused check rather than a full assessment of all five areas of care.
Staffing during the outbreak
Staff absences linked to COVID-19 and other issues did not reduce staffing levels or the quality of support. The home covered extra shifts without agency staff.
“Staffing absences, due to COVID-19 infections and other issues had not impacted on staffing levels or the quality of support people received.” from the report
Infection control measures
The home had PPE, regular testing, extra cleaning and changes to routines to reduce infection risks. Inspectors were assured that most infection control arrangements were working.
“Additional cleaning protocols were in place to ensure all high touch points were regularly sanitised.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home followed the visiting guidance in force during the outbreak. Essential care givers and end-of-life visits could continue, and a visitor pod supported safer contact with relatives.
“The service had invested in a "visitor pod" which enabled relatives to visit, see and talk to their relative's while ensuring social distancing measures were respected.” from the report
Staff break distancing
needs fixingStaff break arrangements did not consistently maintain social distancing. The issue was raised with the manager and promptly addressed, but inspectors also signposted resources to improve the approach.
“Current arrangements for staff breaks did not ensure social distancing measures were consistently respected.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to staff break arrangements after the inspection, and how do you check that social distancing is maintained?
- 02How are staff and residents tested for COVID-19 now?
- 03What visiting arrangements apply now, including for essential care givers and relatives?
- 04How do you make sure PPE is available and used safely by staff and visitors?
- 05When was the service last fully assessed in areas not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2022 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 Eventide Residential Home Limited
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Eventide Residential Home Limited →
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Eventide Residential Home Limited →
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.