CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Eresby Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and care plans gave staff clear guidance. Medicines, staffing, fire safety, infection control and incident reporting were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's physical, social, psychological, cultural and spiritual needs were assessed. Staff had relevant training, people received suitable food and drink, and the home worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and compassionate care. People were treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and activities reflected people's interests. Complaints were investigated and resolved in a timely way.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as approachable and visible. Staff, people and relatives were involved in the running of the home, and quality checks led to improvements.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found significant improvements since 2017 and kind, safe care.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 29 January 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, volunteers and healthcare professionals. They also checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
They found people were safe, cared for by enough trained staff, and given their medicines properly. Care was personalised, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Food, activities, healthcare support and complaints handling were also found to be good.
The home had improved from an overall rating of Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2017. At this inspection, all five areas were rated Good. The report says the legal requirements were met.
Safety improvements
The home had addressed risks identified at the previous inspection. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described and observed as kind, caring and compassionate. People were supported at their own pace and involved in decisions about their care.
“People were cared for by kind, caring and compassionate staff, who treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences and routines. People were supported with hobbies, community visits, religious beliefs and dementia-related needs.
“Care was person centred and people and their relatives were involved in planning their care.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People had varied food choices and their dietary needs were recorded. Staff monitored nutrition and provided fortified food when people were at risk of losing weight.
“People were provided with a varied, nutritious and well-balanced diet.” from the report
Positive leadership
Staff, people and relatives spoke positively about the manager's approachability. Meetings, audits and incident reviews were used to improve the service.
“There was a positive culture in the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people's care needs increase at short notice?
- 02How are people's risk assessments and care plans reviewed when their health or abilities change?
- 03How do you check that the safety and security improvements made after the 2017 inspection continue to work?
- 04How are relatives kept informed about incidents or changes in a person's wellbeing?
- 05How are people living with dementia and their families supported by the Admiral nurses?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, with particular follow-up on the action plan and previous concerns about safety and leadership. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but serious gaps in night staffing, environmental safety and quality checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 15 December 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicine records, recruitment files and quality checks. The inspection was prompted by a serious incident but also reviewed the home overall.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People generally received kind care, suitable food, support with activities and access to healthcare. Staff had training and understood how to support people who lacked capacity to make decisions.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that two care staff had worked a night shift when three were needed. This contributed to people not always receiving the supervision they needed. Inspectors also found risks from stairs, a stair gate and an uncovered radiator.
The provider breached Regulation 12 because risks to people's health and safety had not been properly assessed and managed. Quality checks had not always found or corrected problems quickly enough. The home had previously been rated Good at the inspection on 30 October 2015.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“Staff were caring, kind and compassionate. Staff respected people's right to privacy and promoted their dignity.” from the report
Food suited to people's needs
Menus reflected people's preferences and staff could provide alternatives. Dietary risks, including swallowing difficulties and diabetes, were considered.
“People had access to the food and drinks of their choice and when it was needed they were supported to eat their meals in ways which met their needs.” from the report
Training and healthcare support
Staff had induction, training and supervision. People received coordinated support from GPs, district nurses and therapists when needed.
“Training and supervision systems were in place to provide staff with the knowledge and skills they required to meet people's needs effectively.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
People were supported with individual and group activities, hobbies, community trips and religious or non-religious choices.
“People were supported to continue to maintain their hobbies and interests and to enjoy a wide range of individual and group activities.” from the report
Night staffing and supervision
seriousTwo care staff were working when three were needed on a night shift. Inspectors found further incidents where a person was not given the supervision needed to keep people safe.
“This meant there were insufficient staffing levels for that period and people were at risk.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousInspectors identified potential risks from low stair bannisters, a stair gate that opened outwards and an uncovered hot radiator that people could reach.
“On the upper floor of the home the stair rail bannisters were low and presented a potential risk in that people could fall over the rails.” from the report
Quality checks did not act quickly enough
needs fixingChecks had not consistently identified or corrected staffing and environmental risks. The provider was asked to improve how it monitored safety and responded to problems.
“Suitable arrangements had not been made to consistently assess, monitor and keep improving the quality and safety of the services provided.” from the report
Care records needed more detail
minorRepositioning charts were completed, but some care records did not state how often people needed to be repositioned.
“The information about the frequency needed had not been recorded in all care records.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are planned for each night shift now, and what happens if someone's needs increase suddenly?
- 02What action was taken to make the stair bannisters, stair gate and radiator safe?
- 03How are incidents now reported, escalated and reviewed so that people receive the right supervision?
- 04How often are environmental safety checks carried out, and how do you make sure identified problems are fixed promptly?
- 05Do current care plans clearly record how often each person needs repositioning or other preventative care?
This inspection reviewed the home overall and all five key questions; it was prompted by a serious incident and the previous rating was Good in 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 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 OSJCT Eresby Hall
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.