Eureka Care Services Limited

“We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to local communities which most people take for granted. We found people did not consistently receive care and support in accordance with the principles of this guidance.”

“People were not kept safe from harm as the systems and processes to keep them safe were not in place. Lessons learned from incidents were not embedded to keep people safe as incidents were not always reported. The provider failed to ensure people were supported by suitably qualified and competent managers and care staff. Staff had not completed appropriate training to safely support people with their known needs. Staff then lacked support and guidance from the registered manager who lacked understanding of their role and had not maintained their own professional development.”

“People had experienced early care visits or late visits. This was due to a lack of effective recruitment and planning. On occasions where two staff were required to provide care, one trained and one untrained staff member attended. This placed people at risk of harm from unsafe care. There were no missed visits and overall punctuality improved during this assessment.”

“People’s care records were not completed when needs were identified and those that were in place were not kept up to date. Those records that were in place contained limited information to instruct staff how to provide care appropriately and consistently. Risks in relation to specific health needs such as skin integrity, people living with dementia, end of life and risks of choking were not assessed to guide staff how to safely support people.”

“The provider was not found to be working in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and did not know how to assess and support people who may lack capacity. Consent to care for those people who had the capacity to decide were signed by others, who did not have the authority to do so.”

“The provider failed to identify shortfalls in people’s care and experiences, as there was inadequate oversight of the service to identify and make improvements.”

“Staff did not always follow good standards of hygiene when providing care to people and not all had attended infection prevention training.”

“Leadership was ineffective and governance arrangements were not embedded. Systems to monitor quality, manage risks, or drive improvement were either absent or not followed. Engagement with staff, external partners, and the wider community was limited, and learning from incidents or previous inspections was not demonstrated.”

“The service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they…”