Elm

Updated 12 April 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. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Service and service type:

Elm is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. 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:

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

What we did:

We reviewed the information we held about the service. This included information received from the provider about deaths, accidents/incidents and safeguarding alerts which they are required to send us by law. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once a year to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with two people, and as some people using the service were not able to verbally communicate with us, we observed how staff interacted with them. After the inspection, we spoke with one relative of a person using the service. We also spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, specialised provision lead and two members of support staff. We looked at two people's support records and associated records and monitoring. We also looked at other records relating to the management of the service including staff recruitment, quality assurance, and incidents.

Updated 12 April 2019

About the service:

Elm is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to three people who may have physical, sensory or mental disabilities. At the time of inspection, three people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People continued to receive safe care. Staff understood safeguarding procedures to follow to report abuse and incidents of concern. Risk assessments were in place to manage risks to people, while also promoting their independence.

Staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were completed. Staffing numbers matched the level of people’s assessed needs within the service during our inspection.

Staff training was provided to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and support needed to perform their roles. Specialist training was provided to make sure that people's needs were safely met and they were supported effectively.

Staff were well supported by the manager and management team. Staff we spoke with were positive about the senior staff and management in place, confirming staff had regular supervision meetings.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided. 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.

Staff continued to treat people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them. Care plans reflected people's likes and dislikes and staff spoke with people in a friendly and respectful manner.

People were involved in the planning and development of their care plans and were able to contribute to the way they were supported. People and their family were involved in reviewing their support and making any necessary changes.

A process was in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns. Concerns were acted upon promptly and lessons were learnt, following open communication.

The service continued to be well managed. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions were taken and improvements were made when required.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 18 May 2016)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up:

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