Archived: Eagle Care Home

The service is on two floors with access to floors via stairs or a passenger lift. Shared living areas include three lounges on the ground floor, and a dining room. The service stands in its own grounds with garden areas.

There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. 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.

There was a friendly welcoming environment and people said they felt Eagle Care Home was a homely place to live.People told us that they felt safe living at Eagle Care Home. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood how to recognise and report abuse. We observed warm and friendly interactions between staff and people throughout the inspection and it was evident staff knew people well. Staff were compassionate about caring for people at the end of their lives.

Risks to people's health and welfare were not always clearly documented for staff to be able to support people safely or effectively. Care plans were well organised, with information easy to find. However, these were not always detailed enough to ensure people’s needs were met fully.

Medicines were not always managed safely, with areas requiring improvement, particularly around recording and 'as required' medicines.

Staff felt supported to carry out their work and they understood their roles and responsibilities. There were enough staff to support people; they worked well as a team and communicated continuously to meet people’s needs.

Staff understood how to keep people safe from the spread of infection and infection control practice was mostly appropriate. There were some routine maintenance checks and staff knew how to report maintenance issues, although safety checks for premises and equipment were not always robust.

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 support this practice. People's consent to care was appropriately sought within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.

People enjoyed the quality food and there were always drinks available. There were some activities provided and most people felt there was plenty to do.

There was a complaints process in place and people and relatives knew how to make a complaint. There had been no complaints since the service was registered under the new provider name. Visitors told us that they felt welcome within the home and able to visit whenever they wanted.

People and relatives felt the registered manager was visible and accessible to people and they were confident in the care that was being provided. Systems and processes for assessing and monitoring the quality of the provision were not fully robust or consistent. The registered manager was very responsive to feedback about the service and welcomed people’s views.

You can see the action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.