Eversfield House

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 7 May 2024 (assessment visit 26 February 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   GGood Good

   Safety risks to people were now assessed and better managed. People’s care records had been improved and staff had up to date information about how to manage risk to people. Staff understood how to reduce risk to keep people safe from injury or harm. The environment was now safer for people. Medicines management and administration had been improved and people received their medicine as prescribed. There were enough staff to support people with their needs. The home manager reviewed staffing levels regularly to make sure there were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff on duty at all times. Staff received relevant training to meet people’s needs. They were well supported through supervision and appraisal to continuously learn and improve their working practice. Recruitment checks were robust and ensured only staff deemed suitable and fit, would be employed to support people at the service.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   People were involved in assessing their needs and were able to state their choices and preferences for how their care and support should be provided. Staff understood how people’s needs should be met. Managers reviewed the care and support people received to make sure this remained effective and helped people achieve positive outcomes.

3. Responsive

   GGood Good

   People were involved in planning and making decisions about their care to ensure the support they received was centred around them and their needs. Staff knew people well and understood their needs and preferences. Staff made sure people received care and support that reflected their individual needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

4. Well-led

   –No rating No rating

   The provider was not currently meeting a condition of their registration to have a registered manager in post. The provider was also not always submitting statutory notifications about key events as required by their registration. However, management and oversight of the service had improved. The service was led by a home manager that was knowledgeable, experienced and respected by people and staff. Governance systems were now better and a programme of regular audit had been implemented to enable the home manager to check the safety and quality of the service. People and staff were asked for their feedback about how the service could be improved. The home manager used feedback and learning to make improvements to the service. The provider was planning to improve the service further by further investment in staff and implementation of new systems to manage and administer medicines.