Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Domain Care North West

Eden House

2 Lawton Street, Droylsden, Manchester, M43 7XD

Goodpublished 24 November 2023, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found enough staff, appropriate risk assessments and safeguarding arrangements. This part of the service was not fully assessed, so the rating was not changed.
Effective?
Good
This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
Caring?
Good
This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
Responsive?
Good
People were supported with activities, relationships and complaints, but relatives gave mixed feedback about activities and one relative felt concerns had not been acted on.
Well-led?
Good
This question was not assessed during the targeted inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Overall rating remains Good, but this targeted inspection was not rated and found some concerns about activities and one relative's unresolved complaint.

This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 13 and 19 December 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked one person's care records, staffing rotas and management records.

The inspection focused on staffing culture, safeguarding, risk management, social activities and complaints. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk plans and systems to protect people from abuse and learn from incidents. People said they felt safe, and most relatives gave positive feedback.

Some relatives felt activities could be improved, and one relative felt their concerns had not been acted on. The home had introduced individual activity timetables after the previous inspection. This targeted inspection did not rate the full service, so the previous overall rating of Good remains in place.

What inspectors praised

  • Safe staffing

    Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care and support. Staff were visible in the home and people were supported to access the community.

    “The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff to provide safe care and support.” from the report

  • Clear risk planning

    Risk assessments gave staff useful guidance, including how to respond to seizures and long-term health conditions. The manager reviewed them when people's needs changed.

    “Risk assessments gave staff clear guidance on how best to support people in different situations, for example, the management of seizures.” from the report

  • Safeguarding and learning

    Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Accidents and incidents were reviewed so the home could identify patterns and reduce future risks.

    “The provider learned lessons when things had gone wrong.” from the report

  • Individual activity planning

    The home introduced a timetable for each person after feedback at the previous inspection. This was intended to give people more structure and help plan trips.

    “Following the feedback at our last inspection in November 2023 the service implemented an activities timetable for each person, this gave people structure to know what they were doing each day and plan trips in advance.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Recent staffing challenges

    needs fixing

    Some staff had not been available for work, so the home needed to recruit to keep staffing levels safe. Inspectors found staffing was safe during this inspection.

    “There had been recent challenges at the service in regard to a small number of staff not being available for work, which meant the service needed to actively recruit to ensure staffing levels remained safe.” from the report

  • Activities may not be enough for everyone

    needs fixing

    Relatives gave mixed feedback. One said their family member did much more in the past, although the home had started individual activity timetables.

    “[Person's name] does go out, but he did much more in the past.” from the report

  • One complaint remained unresolved

    needs fixing

    One relative felt their concerns had not been acted on. During the inspection, the provider contacted social services to arrange a meeting with the relative.

    “However, 1 person's relative felt their concerns had not been acted upon by the provider.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are you covering shifts while recruiting for staff who have not been available for work?
  2. 02How often is my relative's individual activity timetable reviewed, and can you show how it reflects their interests?
  3. 03What activities and community visits are currently planned for my relative?
  4. 04How will you record, investigate and resolve any concerns I raise?
  5. 05What actions have been agreed following the meeting arranged with the relative and social services?

This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about Safe and Responsive care; it did not assess the full five key questions, so the previous overall rating of Good remains unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2023

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some relatives asking for better communication and healthier food choices.

Inspectors visited on 3 and 6 November 2023. They spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and quality records.

The home supports people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, develop independence, communicate and take part in activities.

All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating, published in September 2017.

What inspectors praised

  • Personalised support

    Staff focused on people's strengths and helped them make choices, build independence and have meaningful everyday lives.

    “Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life.” from the report

  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors found warm, respectful interactions. Staff understood people's individual communication needs and protected their dignity and privacy.

    “People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report

  • Safe staffing and medicines

    Staffing levels and skills matched people's needs. Medicines records were completed properly and staff understood how to avoid over-medication.

    “The numbers and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service.” from the report

  • Good management

    The registered manager was visible and approachable. Quality checks, feedback systems and partnership working supported the running of the home.

    “The provider's governance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Healthier food choices

    needs fixing

    Some relatives felt there were too many opportunities to eat fatty food and that this could lead to weight gain. The provider said it was reviewing its healthy eating guidance.

    “There are too many opportunities for people to eat 'fatty' foods which might mean they put on weight.” from the report

  • Communication with relatives

    minor

    Some relatives wanted more information about people's lives and the home's activities. After the inspection, the provider agreed to produce regular newsletters.

    “some relatives felt more could be done to include them in people's lives, for example through regular newsletters.” from the report

  • Visiting space and building improvements

    minor

    Some relatives wanted more private areas for visits. Inspectors also noted that some parts of the building needed repair and redecoration, with improvement plans in place.

    “some relatives felt the service could benefit from more areas for them to meet privately when visiting.” from the report

  • Mixed views on activities

    minor

    Relatives did not all agree about the activities available or the support given to join in. The provider contacted relatives after the inspection to explain the activities available.

    “There's not much in the way of activities and staff don't support [my relative] to send family cards.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to the healthy eating guidance, and how will you support someone who may gain weight?
  2. 02What private space is now available for relatives to visit, and when will the planned repair and redecoration work be completed?
  3. 03How often will relatives receive newsletters, and what information will they contain?
  4. 04What activities are available for someone with my relative's interests, and how will staff support them to take part?
  5. 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care and daily choices?

This inspection looked at all five CQC areas and included observations, discussions and records; all five ratings were Good and carried over as Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 November 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Eden House

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. January 2024Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Eden House →

  2. November 2023Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Eden House →

  3. March 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. December 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. September 2014

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 September 2014.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Nearby

Other care homes near Manchester

All in Tameside

Sunnyside

Manchester, M43 · 1.3 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 13 months agocare home

Daisy Nook House

Ashton-under-Lyne, OL7 · 2.0 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home