Archived: Elm House

Updated 14 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.’

This comprehensive inspection took place 21 May 2018. It was unannounced and was carried out by one inspector.

We reviewed all the information we had available about the service, including notifications sent to us by the provider. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law. We used this information to plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection.

We also reviewed the information the provider had given us in their Provider Information Confirmation (PIC). This form asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well, and the improvements they plan to make. We also sought feedback from commissioners who had funded people to live there and monitored the service.

During our inspection, we spent time observing people to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us. We spoke to one person, two relatives, two support workers and the registered manager. Their feedback about the service has been included within the report.

We looked at the care records of three people to see whether they reflected the care given and four staff recruitment records. We looked at other information related to the running of and the quality of the service. This included quality assurance audits, training information for care staff, minutes of meetings with staff and people who lived in the service and arrangements for managing complaints.

Updated 14 June 2018

Elm House is a ‘care service’. People in care services receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Elm House provides care and support for up to four people with complex neurological needs following a traumatic or acquired brain injury. The service aims to provide short-term and long-term rehabilitation service to enable people to maximise their lives. At the time of our inspection there were three people using the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service was Safe. People their medicines on time and in the right way. Systems were in place to keep people safe and risks had been assessed and considered. Recruitment processes were in place which made sure that staff were recruited safely.

The service was Effective. Staff were given a robust induction when they started and had been trained to meet people’s needs. They received regular supervision and appraisals. People had access to see a GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to do so. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service was Caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs regarding equality, diversity and their human rights. The care and support people received was individualised.

The service was Responsive. People’s health and emotional needs were assessed, monitored and met in order for them to live well. The policies and systems in the service support this practice. A range of activities was on offer and people were supported to live day to day lives such as socialising and working. We have made a recommendation about the accessible communications standards.

The service was Well-Led. Audits were carried out on a regular basis, and surveys had ben carried out which looked at the quality of the service people received. The registered manager had a clear oversight of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.