Archived: Earsdon Grange

Updated 10 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place, along with lessons learned after accidents and incidents.

This inspection took place on 9 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 10 March 2021

Earsdon Grange is a care home providing residential care for up to 48 people.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of the inspection there were 44 people accommodated across two floors. People living with a dementia are supported on the first floor.

At our last inspection in November 2017 we rated the service good. At this unannounced inspection completed on 6 November 2018 we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since out last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People told us they felt safe, staff had attended training in safeguarding people and knew how to report any concerns which they were confident would be addressed. Risk assessments were in place which contained control measures to minimise risks and accidents and incidents were investigated and analysed for lessons learnt.

Electronic systems were used for medicines management and care planning. The system generated alerts to support the safe management of medicines, and to alert staff to any changes in people’s needs.

Care records included information on people’s preferences, medicines, mobility and nutritional needs. Documentation was completed in a timely manner and was reviewed to ensure people were receiving care and support appropriate to their needs.

A dependency tool was used to assess the number of staff needed to support people and staff said there were enough of them to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment practices continued to be used.

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.

Some engagements with people were warm and respectful but others were task focused and reactive. We have made a recommendation about proactive and meaning engagement with people.

Dementia friendly signage was on display and the environment was clean, tidy and free from hazards. There were specific areas where people chose to spend their time and we observed these areas had insufficient seating for the number of people. The registered manger said additional seating had been ordered.

Training was comprehensive and covered a wide range of subjects. Staff said they were well trained, well supported and their career development was encouraged.

Complaints were documented appropriately and evidence was available that families had been updated following concerns.

A governance framework was in place and regular audits produced action plans which lead to continuous development and improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.