Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Evergreen Residential Home, Mannamead, Plymouth.

Evergreen Residential Home in Mannamead, Plymouth is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and caring for adults over 65 yrs. The last inspection date here was 26th November 2019

Evergreen Residential Home is managed by Mr Roy Richard Tope & Mrs Jacqueline Tope.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Evergreen Residential Home
      2 Brandreth Road
      Mannamead
      Plymouth
      PL3 5HQ
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01752665042

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-11-26
    Last Published 2017-05-10

Local Authority:

    Plymouth

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

20th April 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Evergreen Residential Home provides residential care and accommodation for up to 16 older people who require support in older age. The service is on two floors, with access to the upper floor by a chair lift or stairs. On the day of the inspection there were 14 people living at the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service overall remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

People and their families without exception, told us they received excellent care from kind, compassionate, and caring staff, telling us, “I have peace of mind about mum’s care, it’s excellent”, “This is my home and it feels just like home” and “They all love him and it shows”.

People mattered. There was a strong culture of ensuring people were at the heart of the service. People were helped to express their views to enable the service to be delivered in line with their wishes and preferences.

People valued their relationships with staff, and displayed love and affectation towards them. Staff knew people and their families well and spoke with fondness about the people they cared for. The atmosphere of the service was homely, with people, families and staff describing it as a “family”.

People were empowered to retain their independence and practical action was taken to relivieve people’s distress. People were cared for at the end of their life, by compassionate staff who not only supported them to be comfortable but showed empathy towards their family too. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted.

People told us they felt safe living at the service, one person told us “I feel safe because I never feel on my own”. People were protected from avoidable harm or abuse because staff had received training and knew how to protect people. Staff had been recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Risks associated with people’s care were effectively managed to help ensure they were protected and their freedom respected. People told us there were enough staff to care for them and they received their medicines on time.

People told us staff had the skills and experience to meet their individual needs. Staff told us they felt supported and training to help ensure people’s needs were met safely and effectively. Staffs’ own areas of interest were promoted to help benefit the staff team and cascade knowledge.

People were protected by infection control procedures and lived in an environment which was clean and free from odour. Safety checks were carried out to help ensure the safety of the environment. Staff had received training in subjects such as fire and moving and handling in order to help people to be safe.

People’s consent to care was sought and people’s human rights were protected by a service which followed legislation. Staff received training and understood how to lawfully care for people when they lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People told us the meals were nice, comments included “There’s always plenty to drink and eat” and “It’s lovely food here”. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and reviewed to help ensure people benefited from a balanced diet. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing being by accessing external health care professionals.

People received individualised care. People’ care needs were documented and reviewed with them to help ensure the care they received met with their needs and aspirations. People’s families were kept updated and informed of their loved ones care. People knew how and who to complain to. People’s complaints were used positively to help improve the on-going quality of the service.

People and their families were encouraged and empowered to share their views about the service in order to maintain the ongoing quality and delivery. Families had helped in the recruitment of new staff to help provide a relative’s perspective. The provider had auditing systems i

17th February 2015 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on the 17 February 2015 and was unannounced.

Evergreen Residential Home provides care and accommodation for up to 16 older persons. They do not provide nursing care. There were 16 people living there when we visited.

A registered manager was in place at 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. Two other managers were employed to support the day to day running of the service; one to support the management of care and one for the maintenance of the building and equipment.

At the last inspections on 19 May 2014 and 01 September 2014 we told the provider to take action to make improvements in respect of ensuring people’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that was safe. We also requested the provider send us an action plan in relation to how they were going to address concerns in relation to the safety and suitability of the premises; supervision and appraisals of staff; involving people in relation to planning their care; ensuring records held on people were accurate and monitoring the quality of the service and care people received. The provider told us how they were going to put right these concerns. At this inspection we reviewed the concerns and found they had been addressed.

There was a strong philosophy of care that was disseminated to staff, people and their relatives. During the inspection we observed people who lived there and staff were relaxed in each other’s company. People and staff greeted each other warmly. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff and the managers were always visible and dealt with people’s care needs in a timely and positive manner.

People’s rights were respected. Staff were knowledgeable about protecting people from abuse. People were in control of their care and had their consent sought at all times. They planned their care with a designated member of staff who was also their keyworker. Where required, people had their ability to consent to their care assessed so their legal right to consent was protected. People, visitors and health and social care professionals spoke highly of the service and the care received. One person told us: “I am very content with my care. I am quite able to do most things and the staff respect this. If I ask staff they are very willing. I have never found them to be anything but polite.”

People were cared for by staff that were recruited safely and trained to a high standard to meet people’s individual needs. All staff had taken a higher qualification in care and had their training updated. Staff felt the registered manager supported them to develop personally and professionally to ensure they were effective in meeting people’s needs.

People had their health and nutritional needs met. Medicines were administered safely. People received their medicines as prescribed. A range of risk assessments were in place to reduce the likelihood of these affecting people. Care plans were easy to follow with a clear link between any risks to people’s health and wellbeing and actions the staff should or could take to reduce them. Efforts were made to ensure people’s independence was respected. Staff could follow the care plans to ensure they were delivering care that was agreed, safe and appropriate.

There was a clear system of governance and management in place. Audits took place at all levels to review the service to ensure a high level of safe care was delivered. People were asked about their care and how the service was run to ensure any concerns were addressed quickly. Complaints, concerns and positive comments were reflected on, to drive continuous improvements. Staff felt supported in making suggestions about how the service was run and stated they could approach the managers at any time. Staff and the registered manager all expressed they felt they would sustain the changes which had been made.

1st September 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer one of our five key questions: Is the service effective? We gathered information from people who used the service by talking with them, by speaking with staff and with the registered provider/managers.

This is a summary of what we found-

This was a follow up inspection to ensure the home had taken action to comply with the two warning notices the Commission had served dated 16 June 2014.

The warning notices had been issued because at our last inspection on 21st May 2014 the Commission was concerned that the registered provider did not have arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We also found that the registered provider was not taking proper steps to ensure that each person was protected against the risk of receiving care or treatment that was inappropriate or unsafe. The Commission judged that this was having a major impact on people who used the service and took enforcement action against the registered provider.

This inspection was carried out by two inspectors on 01 September 2014. They arrived at the home at approximately 10.15am and left at approximately 6.30pm. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living at Evergreen Residential Home.

As part of our inspection we spoke with four people who lived at the care home, three members of staff, the registered provider/manager and a manager who had responsibility for the monitoring the systems in place and the quality of the service. We also read five care plans, care files, observed care and reviewed documents provided for us to review during the course of our inspection.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service effective?

At the time of our inspection we did not find the service to be effective.

It is an essential requirement of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 that a provider has a registered manager in place to ensure people who use the service have their care, treatment and support needs met because there is a competent person leading the service. At the time of our inspection the home did not have a registered manager in place however an application for registration has been submitted to the Commission.

On the day of our inspection there were three managers responsible for running the home. Manager (A) had applied to be registered with the Commission as the Registered Manager and was the owner of the home. Manager (B) carried out duties similar to Manager (C) and took responsibility for quality assurance and monitoring. Manager three was responsible for the maintenance of the building, health and safety, repairs and was one of the Fire Wardens. All Managers were on duty on the day of our inspection.

We found, care and treatment was not planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare.

Care plans are documents which are created with a person, they family and or their representatives to provide guidance and direction to staff about how they would like their care needs to be met. We found, documentation we reviewed, including care plans, risk assessments and daily records did not always support the care and welfare of the person and were not always reflective of the care and support being delivered.

We read in the daily records for one person that decisions regarding their health were being made by staff without the consultation of a health professional, such as a nurse or a GP.

We found that the registered providers care plan approach and handover method did not ensure the welfare and safety of the person and ensure that their individual needs were being supported and met.

Call bells ensure people can access staff for support at any time from any area of the care home. We found that people did not always have access to a call bell.

There was a manager who took responsibility for the systems in place for the quality monitoring of the service, but we found that the systems did not ensure the welfare and safety of people.

19th May 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We last inspected Evergreen Residential Home (referred to as ‘the home’) on 6 October 2013. We raised concerns about certain aspects of how the home was looking after people living there. We asked the provider how they were going to address those concerns and by which date. They told us they would have achieved this by the end of April 2014. We returned this time to review the areas we were concerned with in October 2013 and in addition we looked at how the home was training and supporting its staff.

There were 16 people living in the home at the time of our inspection. We spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. We also used our observation, to see how care was being provided, and read records kept by the home. We spoke with one professional who visited a person in the home.

A single inspector carried out this inspection. We spoke with eight people who lived in the home, read four care plans (these are the records that tell us how care should be delivered), spoke with two family members and two staff. We also spoke with two of the managers, of which there were three, during the day.

When we inspect we gather evidence to answer the questions below:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of the inspection and what we found.

Is the home safe?

People told us they felt the staff were suitably trained to carry out their tasks. They stated “I’m looked after very well” adding staff were competent in how they looked after them. We were also told “They’re alright; you are bound to get one or two who are not good.”

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People told us that staff were polite and respectful when speaking and interacting with them. We observed that staff treated people with respect and used a balance of caring, kindly tones and humour when interacting with people.

Few staff had completed safeguarding adults training, but we were shown that the home was seeking to place staff on the training that the local authority was providing.

We found that people’s care plans and records kept by the home did not address people’s current needs. We also found the records lacked risk assessments to ensure that the person’s individual needs had been assessed and their care planned accordingly.

There was a system in place to check the safety of the building on a weekly basis. We raised concerns about the fire exits to the rear of the building. People told us they could not always use the light above their sink as it was difficult to grasp. The emergency alarms in the en-suite and toilet facilities were either broken or short. These would be difficult to reach in the event of a fall.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report what we find. The DoLS apply to care homes and hospitals. We found that people’s records included an assessment of their mental capacity and referenced whether the DoLS were relevant. Staff had been trained in the requisites of both the MCA and DoLS so reducing the possibility of people being deprived of their liberty illegally.

Is the home effective?

We found people who used the service were not being given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. The eight people we spoke with told us that they had not seen their care plan or been involved with its design and development.

People told us the care they were being provided with was how they expected. For example, one person told us they had to have a special diet and this was catered for. We were told: “The staff respect that I need time to do things; I’m slow and they rarely rush me”; “They wash and dress me. I can’t do that now”; “The staff help me with washing. I can dress and do most things myself. The staff help with what I can’t reach” and “I am able to do most things myself; the home orders my dressing packs”.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. All of the eight people we spoke with told us they were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.

Is the home caring?

The majority of people told us their experience of living in the home was positive. People told us: “I am looked after very well; generally I am happy”; “My care is very good”; “I’m alright; quite satisfied”; “The staff are very good” and “There’s no better place in Plymouth; we’re well looked after.”

One person when asked how they felt they were cared for, however, told us “You pretty much look after yourself; they tell you off every now and then”.

Relatives told us: “The home has been fantastic; they’ve been absolutely brilliant. My mum’s come on leaps and bounds since being here. They spent time with her to settle her in” and “I think my mum’s content there.”

People told us there were a few activities in the week where they could complete jigsaws and quizzes but if the staff were too busy there was less interaction. Some people who were in their rooms stated that staff would drop in to see if they were alright, but we were also told “Staff don’t pop in to talk to me; not very often anyway. I’m usually on my own” and “When staff bring a cup of tea they will have a few cheerful words.” We did not see staff providing activities and interaction beyond completing tasks while we were at the home.

Is the home responsive?

The home had been found to be noncompliant in several outcomes when last inspected in October 2013. They had provided us with an action plan and stated they would have the areas addressed by the end of April 2013. During this inspection we found areas of those action plans had not been fully addressed. We continued to have concerns about how the home was meeting people’s needs. This raised concerns about the home responding appropriately to the concerns raised and ensuring these were addressed.

People told us they were always asked what food they would like to eat and were offered alternatives.

We found people’s personal choices were not used as a foundation to their care plans and people who used the service did not always understand the choices available to them in respect of their care and treatment. For example, one person told us that they had a catheter in place and did not understand why this was.

Is the home well led?

There was not a Registered Manager in place. We were told that there were three managers responsible for running the home. Manager (1) was seeking to be registered as the Registered Manager and was the owner of the home. Manager (2) carried out duties similar to Manager (1). Manager (3) was responsible for the maintenance of the building, health and safety, repairs and was one of the Fire Wardens. Manager (1) and (3) were on duty on the day we carried out our inspection.

We were told that all three managers had recently reviewed their roles. Manager (1) and (2) had sought to ensure that they took on different responsibilities for different parts of running the home. They had recognised that there was duplication of roles and this was not supporting the home to progress.

People told us they knew Manager (1) was the owner of the home and had ultimate responsibility. People gave us a mixed picture of how they felt the home was run. People told us they “rarely saw” Manager (1) but we were also told “The person who runs it is a caring person; the home is really caring.”

The home had systems in place to ensure the maintenance of the building was up to date. The quality assurance system in place, however, had not identified the concerns raised by our most recent inspection.

We found the systems in place had not ensured people were protected from the likelihood of inappropriate and unsafe care.

6th October 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

On the day of our inspection, we met and spoke with people who lived at Evergreen Residential Home. We spoke with the provider, senior carer, care staff and the chef.

Overall people who lived at Evergreen Residential Home were satisfied with the care and support they received and told us that they were treated with dignity and respect. Comments included, “very nice, they do care”, “I get on alright with the staff”, “it’s very good, food on the whole is very good” and “I’m quite content”. One person told us that the staff did not always knock on their bedroom door prior to entering.

We found, people’s privacy, dignity and independence were not always respected. People’s views and experiences were not always taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

People’s needs were assessed, however, care and treatment was not planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were not protected against the risk of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

The provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. The provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage the risk to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inapproprte care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.

21st December 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People who used the service told us they liked living at Evergreen Residential Home. They had choices in how they spent their time and felt supported by the staff registered manager and care workers. We saw that people were able to come and go from the home freely, either on their own or with friends and relatives.

We found that care records were detailed and informed care workers how to look after the people who lived in the home. We found that the staff were well supported and had access to training and development opportunities.

We were told that there was a choice of meals and that people who used the service enjoyed their meals. One person was pleased they had a kettle in their room so they could make drinks whenever they wanted.

We found that there were robust systems in place to order, store and dispense prescribed medication.

We saw that the quality of the service was monitored: people were asked about the quality of the service they received, regular maintenance and servicing of equipment, and regular audits.

 

 

Latest Additions: