Enstone House

Risks to people's safety and well-being were not always managed safely and there was an inconsistent approach to the risk management process. We found 2 broken window restrictors and an electrical heater which had not been risk assessed.

The environment was not always maintained to good standards. On the first day of the inspection there were malodours in the home. There were no clear cleaning schedules and there were gaps on cleaning records. The provider's auditing systems had identified the shortfalls but there were no actions completed in relation to this.

Some people's records contained conflicting information. The provider's quality assurance systems were not always effective or used to drive improvements. We also found there was no clear provider oversight of the service.

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. Staff had a good understanding of when the principles of the Mental Capacity Act should be applied. However, the mental capacity assessments did not cover all areas where decisions needed to be assessed.

People's needs were assessed before they came to live at Enstone House to ensure staff could meet those needs. People were supported to have a positive dining experience in a dignified manner.

Staff completed an induction which included mandatory training and shadowing an experienced member of staff and had access to supervisions and appraisals. People and relatives told us staff were skilled and knowledgeable.

The home was well-led by a long-standing registered manager who had support from a deputy manager. There was a management structure in place and a group of staff who worked well as a team. Staff worked well with external social and health care professionals.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk