Archived: Elmhurst

Updated 21 August 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was undertaken by two inspectors.

Service and service type

Elmhurst is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with eight people who used the service and six relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with ten members of staff including the registered manager, regional manager, deputy manager, senior care workers and care workers. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.

Updated 21 August 2019

About the service

Elmhurst is a purpose-built care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 61 older people. At the time of this inspection 58 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and relatives said the care and support people received was safe. The provider ensured people were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. Risks to people`s well-being and health were assessed, and measures put in place to mitigate identified risks. The provider operated safe and effective recruitment practices. People, their relatives and staff told us there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.

People’s medicines were managed safely, and people were satisfied with the support provided with their medicines. There were infection control procedures in place and the environment was clean with no lingering malodours. The registered manager demonstrated they took learning opportunities from adverse events and incidents.

Elmhurst is a purpose-built care home arranged over two floors. Equipment was readily available to support people to be as independent as possible. Assessments were completed prior to moving into the home to establish if people`s needs could be fully met. Staff received training, support and supervision to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. People said they enjoyed the food provided and were offered choice. Staff knew people well and were able to quickly identify when people`s needs changed and seek professional advice.

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 treated people with kindness and dignity. Relatives appreciated staff`s kindness and the attention they showed to people. People were encouraged and supported to be involved with their care choices. People’s care plans were person centred and supported staff with understanding people`s past, likes, dislikes and preferences. Visitors were made to feel welcome and there were no restrictions on visiting times.

People received care and support as they wished. Staff knew what people liked and offered people meaningful choices throughout the day. There was clear signage throughout the home so that communal areas, bathrooms and people’s bedrooms were easily identifiable for people and their visitors. People enjoyed a wide range of opportunities for social interaction. People were comfortable to raise concerns if they needed to and felt they were listened to and issues were resolved. When people were nearing the end of their lives action was taken to keep them as comfortable as possible and to remain at the service if this was their choice.

People said the registered manager was approachable and was seen around the home regularly. People, their relatives, external professionals and staff told us the home was managed well. The registered manager used the provider’s robust governance systems to help identify and resolve issues in the home. People had regular meetings to discuss the service and make suggestions about how the home performed. Feedback from people was used to help influence continuous improvement in the home. The registered manager had developed good working relationships with external health professionals ensuring people's social and health needs were promptly met and had developed relationships with local community groups to enhance people’s everyday lives.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good. (published February 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.