Etheldred House Care Home

Updated 25 December 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

The service had been identified for use by the Local Authority as a designated care setting in response to the Winter Plan for people discharged from hospital with a positive Covid-19 status. This inspection was to ensure that the service was compliant with infection control and prevention measures.

This inspection took place on 4 December 2020 and was announced.

Updated 25 December 2020

Etheldred House Care Centre is registered to provide accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 82 people. At the time of our inspection there were 75 people living in the service, some of whom may be living with dementia. The service is divided into four ‘houses’ over two floors. The houses are called Strawberry House, Pear House, Apple House and Cherry House.

This unannounced inspection took place on 17 August 2017. At the last comprehensive inspection on 4 June 2015 the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found overall the service was ‘Good’.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who used the service. People were looked after by staff who were trained and supported to do their job

People were helped to take their medicines by staff who were trained and had been assessed to be competent to administer medicines.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink. They were also supported to access health care services and their individual health and nutritional needs were met.

The registered manager was aware of what they were required to do should any person lack mental capacity. People’s mental capacity was assessed and care was provided in their best interests. Staff were trained and knowledgeable about the application of the MCA.

People were treated by kind, respectful staff who enabled them to make choices about how they wanted to live. People and their relatives were given opportunities to be involved on a day-to-day basis about their planned care.

There was a strong commitment to developing respectful, trusting relationships. Staff all demonstrated care, compassion and empathy towards the people they supported. Staff used creative ways to engage people with the service. People and their relatives were extremely satisfied with the service they received and told us the service provided an excellent level of care and support. People and relatives consistently told us they/their family member felt cared for, valued and listened to and that their views mattered. The ethos of the service was to make people feel valued, supported and included, with an aim to enhance quality of life. Visitors to the service, including children were welcomed by staff members and were encouraged to visit. Interactions promoted wellbeing and showed staff knew people well. People were at the heart of care.

Comprehensive care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. These had been produced jointly with people living in the service, their relatives and staff. People had agreed what care and support they needed and were fully involved and engaged by staff in making decisions about their support. People were able to choose how they spent their time and what individual and/or group activities they participated with. People participated in a range of activities within the service or in the community and received the support they needed to help them to do this.

People were involved in the running of the service. Regular meetings were held for people who lived at the service so that they could discuss any issues or make recommendations for improvements. People were offered a chance to raise any other business that they wanted to. People confirmed that they were asked for their views on the service and could make recommendations for improvements if needed.

There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and were acted upon.

There were clear management arrangements in place. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken as a result. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action was taken where improvements were identified.