Archived: Elizabeth Fleming Care Home

Updated 22 September 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 inspection took place on 10 and 18 July 2018 and was unannounced. One inspector carried out the inspection.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Before the inspection we reviewed the information in the PIR as well as all the information we held about the service, this included notifications of significant changes or events.

Prior to the inspection we contacted external commissioners of the service from the local authority and the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), as well as the local authority safeguarding team and the local Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We used their feedback during the planning of this inspection.

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.

During our inspection we spoke with six people who used the service and three relatives. We spoke with a range of staff including the registered manager, the regional manager, one nurse, one senior care worker and three care workers. We reviewed a range of records including four care records, medicine records, training records and other records relating to the quality and safety of the service.

Updated 22 September 2018

Elizabeth Fleming Care Home is nursing home for 36 people. The home is divided into two separate units on one floor. When we inspected there were 36 people living at the home. Some of whom were living with dementia.

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.

We received exceptionally good feedback from people and relatives about the excellent care provided at the home and the caring approach of the staff team. People and relatives enthusiastically told us about the exceptional care provided at the home. They used phrases such as “a terrific place”, “absolutely fabulous” and “first class attention". We heard about numerous occasions when staff went ‘above and beyond’ for people and took time to make them feel special.

People, relatives and staff felt the service was a safe place. Staff knew about safeguarding and the provider’s whistle blowing procedure. They also knew how to report concerns.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We only received positive feedback about the number of staff and there was a visible staff presence throughout our visits to the home.

Medicines were managed safely with accurate records maintained to confirm the medicines staff had given to people. Regular health and safety checks were carried out and the provider had procedures to help ensure people were safe in an emergency.

Staff were well supported and received the training they needed. They told us they could speak with the registered manager anytime.

People were supported to meet their nutritional and health care needs. Due to the complexity of people’s support needs, mealtimes took a long time to complete. The provider was consulting an external auditor about this and was committed to improving people’s dining experience.

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.

People’s needs had been assessed both before and after their admission to identify their care needs. Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s needs and preferences. Care plans were evaluated regularly and included meaningful information about people’s needs. People were actively engaged in a range of activities. The provider had a complaint procedure should anyone wish to complain. There had been no complaints received since we last inspected.

The provider had a structured approach to quality assurance. People, relatives and staff gave good feedback about the registered manager and the management of the home. They also described the home as having a warm and friendly atmosphere. People and staff had regular opportunities to share their views about the home. The provider had received a high number of compliments about the care provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.