Elmhurst Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for the newly registered provider of this service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and caring attitudes had significant shortfalls. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 30 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We saw some examples of staff treating people with kindness and taking their time when talking to them. However, we also observed some practices and interactions which did not promote people's privacy or maintain their dignity. For example, we observed a staff member ask a resident loudly in the lounge in front of others whether they needed to go to the toilet. Professionals involved with the service told us there had been multiple occasions where they felt the provider had been obstructive, abrupt and unprofessional with them.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff did not always promote practices which allowed for independence, choice and control. Staff confirmed there was a lack of individuality and person-centred care being promoted in the home. We saw over half of the people in the service were up and out of bed before 06:30, however, care plans failed to identify these preferences for people who were unable to verbalise consent to this. Care records were not detailed enough to provide specific information on people’s culture, background or any specific requirements.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff told us residents did not have choices as the provider made decisions on what they believed was best for people. Relatives and staff told us when they visited, they were not allowed to spend time in communal areas or people’s bedrooms, and all visits were to be held in the conservatory. There was no evidence of support for people to access local community, and no outings to support their wellbeing.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Records showed the provider was not responsive to people’s changing needs. Staff and the provider took no appropriate action to ensure all needs were being consistently met and recorded, prior to and following people developing pressure wounds. Further to this the provider failed to take efficient action where people lost weight.

Staff were not supported to build resilience or maintain their well-being. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff were not positive about working at the service and they felt they did not have autonomy to provide person-centred care to people as it did not fall in line with the institutionalised schedules set by the provider. Staff did not feel cared for or supported by any of the management team. Feedback included, “The provider shouts at staff if we aren’t doing what they have told us to, they bully the staff and are not nice” and, “I am scared of [the provider] and the manager. We do not get support from them.” Despite staff meetings happening, records of the conversations were minimal and did not show clear or open involvement from staff. There was a poor culture in the service, with staff not confident in the leadership in the service, and a breakdown of communication.