We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ebenezer House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Ebenezer House, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Ebenezer House is a residential care home providing personal care for up to five people with a learning disability and autistic people. At the time of the inspection four people were using the service.
The home is made up of four single bedrooms and a separate, fully contained, one bedroomed bungalow. There are communal areas in the main home, including the dining and lounge areas, kitchen and garden.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
There was no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. Staff told us there had been some inconsistency with the home’s leadership. Although this had not impacted on the service delivery, some staff felt this had led to confusion over consistent working practices. The provider carried out audits of the service to monitor and review the quality of the care provided to people. Competency checks were completed to monitor staff practice to ensure they were working to current best practice. The provider and staff worked in partnership with people, relatives and appropriate health and social care professionals, to ensure people’s support needs were met.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
Systems were in place to keep people safe from risk of avoidable harm and abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe from abuse. Risks had been appropriately assessed with enough staff members on duty to support people safely. People’s medicines were managed safely and the home environment was clean and hygienic. There were processes in place to investigate any incidents to reduce risk of reoccurrences.
A detailed pre-assessment was completed before people moved into the home. People were supported by trained staff who were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs. Staff encouraged people to try healthy food options. Staff sought people's consent and encouraged people make their own decisions.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew people well. People's individual needs were respected and staff supported people with dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in the planning of their support.
The service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of right support, right care, right culture.
Right support
The model of care and the accommodation maximised people's choice and control, independence. The environment was spacious and homely. From the outside, it did not give the impression of being a care home. People were encouraged to bring in their own belongings to personalise their own bedroom. People were encouraged by staff to develop their independence.
Right care
Care is person-centred and promotes people's dignity, privacy and human rights. People were supported by staff that knew them well and understood their needs. Staff told us about the relationships they had built up with people which had increased people’s confidence and enabled them to provide the appropriate support to people even when they were anxious or upset.
Right culture
There was a positive, person-centred culture amongst the staff team. The new manager and staff members worked in partnership with people. There was a culture of listening to people and working in their best interest.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at the last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 10 January 2019).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. A decision was made for us to inspect. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Ebenezer House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home is registered to accommodate up to five people. At the time of the inspection there were five people living at the service.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
A registered manager was in post. 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.
The registered manager and staff team strived to ensure people could play an active role in the community and to lead full and active lives. People were fully involved in the design and review of their care.
People were supported by a staff team who understood how to protect them from harm. Care staff managed risks to people in a positive way. Processes were in place to keep people safe in an emergency such as a fire. People were protected from harm while their independence was maximised. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely.
People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. People were protected by effective infection control procedures.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were encouraged to eat more healthily. People were encouraged to be involved in monitoring and maintaining their day to day health.
Staff supported people in a way that was kind and caring. People’s privacy was respected and their dignity was promoted and upheld. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and were supported to maintain important relationships.
Care staff had the skills they required to support people effectively. Processes were in place to respond to any issues or complaints. The registered manager had developed an open and transparent culture within the service where people were respected and everyone was free to share their views. People were fully involved in the development of the service.
The provider engaged with the wider community and other organisations to drive improvements to the lives of those being supported. A range of quality assurance and governance systems were in place but some improvements were needed. Organisations registered with CQC have a legal obligation to tell us about certain events at the service, so that we can take any required follow up action needed. The provider needed to make sure systems were in place to ensure notifications were sent where required.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 4 February 2106 and was unannounced. We last inspected this home on 14 February 2014 where we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected.
Ebenezer House is a residential home providing accommodation for up to 4 people who may have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection 3 people lived there. There was not a registered manager in post. 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. Following our inspection the new manager registered with the Commission which meant there is now a registered manager in post.
Staff knew how to recognise harm and understood their responsibilities in reporting it to the management. Staff knew what to do should the provider fail in their responsibility to protect people. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and regularly monitored. Relatives told us and we saw there were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe. People told us they received their medicines on time.
People were cared for by knowledgeable staff who had the correct training and skills to meet their needs. People’s rights were protected as the provider had applied to the safeguarding authority to deprive them of their liberty when appropriate. People told us their nutritional needs were being met and they were involved in choosing the menus to suit their own preferences. We saw people had access to health care professionals.
Relatives told us and we saw people were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Positive relationships had been developed between people and the staff who support them. We saw people were encouraged to maintain their independence and daily living skills. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by the staff who supported them.
People were cared for by staff who knew their individual choices and preferences. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them and relatives told us they were made welcome when they visited the home. People had opportunity to follow their own interests and hobbies in the community and in the home. Relatives told us they knew how to complain and when they had they had been listened to.
The provider did not have a registered manager. Following our inspection a new manager registered with the Commission. The manager and staff included people in the running of the home by having regular meetings both on an individual basis and as a group. However it was not clear to us what action had been taken when people made negative comments. Staff told us they were supported by the provider and the new manager and they were included in decisions in the home.
We looked to see if people consented to their care, treatment and support and found that people were encouraged to make choices in their care as much as they were able to.
We found that people's care and welfare needs were being met through comprehensive care plans and care delivery.
We found that the service had systems in place to ensure that cleanliness and infection control procedures were maintained.
We spoke with two members of staff who told us they were happy working at Ebenezer House and felt supported to fulfil their role effectively.
We saw that the service had implemented systems to monitor the quality of care being delivered.
We saw that everyone who lived at the home had their own support plan which they kept in their bedroom so that their information was accessible to them.
Through a process called 'pathway tracking' we looked at support plans and spoke with staff about how they provided support. We spoke with the manager, one staff member and people living at the home. The staff member we spoke with was knowledgeable about support requirements
Staff training were in place to ensure staff knew how to identify and report concerns and incidents within the home, this included suspected abuse.
We saw a copy of the training matrix for the home which told us training was available and had been delivered to staff. The staff we spoke with confirmed this.
We saw that support plans were detailed and risks to people's health and wellbeing had been considered and reviewed. Staff told us if they noticed changes in people's needs they could talk to the people, their relatives and the manager about it to make sure that support plans would be adapted appropriately.
We saw that everyone who lived at the house had signed their own support plan and that everyone had a pictorial record of the plan so that the information was accessible to them. They also had a photographic record of the activities they are supported in to remind them how their independence is developing.
On the day of our visit, all the people who live at Ebenezer House were out at various activities for the day. We talked with two managers, a member of staff and one person who lived at the house about how people were supported. We talked with two people who live at the house by telephone after our visit. All the people we talked with told us they were happy living at Ebenezer House with their friends. One person said, 'I like it here, I am never worried about anything'.
People who live at the house told us they have conversations with the staff about the things they need. We found that the quality of the support given to people was regularly reviewed by the provider and that the provider had created an action plan to make improvements. We saw that some of the identified actions had been taken and some were in progress at the time of our visit.