Elm Park Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed all quality statements for this key question. Our rating for this question remains good. People felt safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to raise any concerns about people’s care. The staff team understood people’s risks and helped people to manage them effectively. People received their medicines as prescribed and there were systems in place to monitor the safety and cleanliness of the home. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs and people made positive comments about the staff team. Staff were safely recruited and received an induction and ongoing training to make sure their skills were appropriate and up to date. People were supported to move safely into the service, having been assessed prior to admission.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Incidents and complaints were managed well. People and relatives said there was a culture of openness. One person said, “On the whole, the day-to-day running is very good.” A relative told us, It’s only fair that I commend Elm Park as I believe it warrants it.”

The provider promoted a culture of honesty, openness and learning. Staff told us they were encouraged to raise concerns and were confident they would be listened to and supported. Staff told us meetings and handovers kept them up to date on changes made in the service, such as any lessons learned from incidents, accidents and concerns.

The registered manager and wider management team analysed incidents, accidents and complaints thoroughly. This helped to identify themes and patterns, and any lessons to be learned. Action was taken to address shortfalls and changes were made in people’s care, how the service was run or training needs for staff. The management team used handovers, meetings, 1 to 1 supervision sessions, and team meetings to share learning with staff. This enabled the whole team to reflect and share ideas on how to improve the service.

One person had recently moved in and told us they were starting to feel settled. We spoke with the person’s relative, who was confident their loved one was safe and said the home was, “Very good. Exceptional.” Another relative told us, “It was difficult when [person] was discharged to here from hospital as [person] had [an infectious illness]. However, this was accommodated.”

The service undertook an assessment of people’s needs before people moved into the home. This helped to make sure people experienced a safe transition into the service. The person and those close to them were involved in the assessment. If this was not possible, for instance if a person was admitted during an emergency, the service gathered as much information as possible electronically and by phone. This was so the service would be aware of, and equipped to meet people’s needs.

Feedback was that the service worked well in partnership with other professionals to assess and address people’s individual needs.

Care was well organised and monitored. When needed, staff referred people to other services, such as community mental health teams, speech and language therapy or social services for additional help. Records showed staff communicated with other professionals and services and made sure people experienced smooth transitions when using or moving between healthcare and other care services. Changes in people’s needs and any new admissions were discussed within the staff team at handovers and meetings to make sure the service kept pace with people’s needs.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe in the home. One person said, “Yes, [I feel safe] oh yes, there’s plenty of people around me.”

Staff had received safeguarding training and were familiar with the provider’s policy on safeguarding people. They were aware of the signs of possible abuse and knew how to report concerns. Staff were confident the management team would take appropriate action in relation to any concerns raised. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in safeguarding people and committed to making sure people were protected from abuse. Records showed investigations were thorough, and the team took safeguarding seriously and were committed to taking action to keep people safe from abuse.

Information about safeguarding people was available in an accessible format and displayed around the home. This helped people and their visitors to know how to report concerns. People were relaxed with staff and felt able to ask for support. There was a culture of openness and communication and we saw no evidence that people were fearful. There was a calm and pleasant atmosphere and staff treated people with kindness and respect. We saw lots of positive interaction between people and staff.

There were clear policies and procedures in place regarding safeguarding and whistleblowing, to provide staff with guidance. Records showed concerns referred to the local authority safeguarding team appropriately and in a timely way. When necessary, the registered manager investigated safeguarding concerns, worked with the local authority and took action to protect people from harm. The management team analysed any incidents and concerns to identify any emerging themes or patterns to improve the care provided. Some people would be at risk if they did not have continuous supervision. Where this was the case, the provider applied suitable Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards make sure people who cannot consent to their care arrangements in a care home or hospital are protected if those arrangements deprive them of their liberty. DoLS applications were submitted to the local authority when people’s liberties were restricted. This was monitored by the registered manager and reflected in people’s care records.

People told us staff understood their needs, respected their wishes and supported them to keep safe. People were involved in reviewing their care plans. Although, 1 relative told us their loved one’s reviews had not always happened.

Managers understood the importance of involving people and their families in the risk assessment process. Staff were familiar with people’s needs, identified risks and understood how to support people safely.

Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence safely and attended to them promptly when they needed assistance. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and supported people in line with their care plans. Staff monitored people’s safety and provided support to people in safe and sensitive way.

People had person-centred care plans and risk assessments in place which were reviewed regularly. The service used monitoring systems, such as sensor alarms. This helped to minimise nighttime disturbance for people, while reducing the risk of accidents and falls.

People and their relatives felt the environment was pleasant and safe. One person invited us into their room which was neat and clean. Another person told us they chose the colour in their bedroom. Colour and décor were used well, to help people to find their way around the home. A a relative said, “I love the colours in the sitting room.” People and relatives confirmed there were call bells in people’s rooms to enable then to call for staff support. Relatives told us if furniture or equipment needed repair this was quickly dealt with. One relative said, “There have been two episodes when things have gone wrong in [person’s] room and [staff] dealt with it straight away.”

Staff demonstrated awareness of safety procedures and of their responsibilities around maintenance and health and safety in the home. They told us they received training in all relevant areas of health and safety.

The home was clean and spacious. There were comfortable chairs and spaces where people could sit quietly away from the main sitting room. Furniture and equipment was well maintained. Care equipment, such as hoists and wheelchairs were subject to regular safety checks. The building was free from clutter and accessible for people with mobility needs.

The environment was clean and well maintained. Where improvements were needed these were identified in an action plan and work was in progress. In the event of any incidents and accidents, referrals were made to the appropriate professionals, such as the falls team or community mental health team. Risks relating to the environment were considered and mitigated. For instance, where people were at risk of falls, equipment was in place to alert staff if a person attempted to walk independently, so staff could provide prompt support. Maintenance and health and safety were monitored, and records were well organised. Health and safety and maintenance checks were completed and safety certificates kept. Fire safety measures, such as equipment testing, and fire drills were in place. People had individual personal emergency evacuation plans to make sure key information about people’s support needs was clear and accessible for staff, in the event of an emergency.

People and their relatives told us there were sufficient staff to keep people safe and they felt staff were competent. One person said, “They [staff] are certainly good”. When asked if staff came quickly when they required assistance, one person said, “Yes, they would.” Although, one relative felt their loved one had to wait longer for assistance at night, and at weekends.

Members of the management team explained staff numbers were based on the dependency levels of people using the service. A dependency tool was used to support with this. Staffing levels were monitored by managers and people’s needs were reviewed to help make sure staffing levels were sufficient, and there would be safe staffing in the event of an emergency. Staff we spoke with said they felt there were enough of them to offer appropriate care to people and senior staff felt supported by the provider in ensuring staffing levels were safe.

On the day of our assessment visit there were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs and respond to their requests. Staff were visible and available in communal areas and people did not wait long for their support. Staff did not appear rushed. They engaged with people frequently, asking how they were and whether they needed support. Staff worked well as a team to make sure tasks were completed, and they interacted with people in an appropriate way.

The provider followed safe recruitment practices. This included requesting references from previous employers and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. There were processes in place to make sure staff received the support they needed to deliver safe care. This included relevant training, supervision and appraisal. Staff training addressed staff’s training needs in relation to people’s individual needs and risks.

People and their relatives told us the home was clean and staff followed good infection control practice. One person was happy to show us their room, which was neat and clean. Another person told us there was plenty of help to keep the home clean and a relative said, “The hygiene practices are pretty good.”

Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of infection. They had training in infection prevention and control (IPC), hand hygiene and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons.

The home was clean, and the laundry was managed safely. Housekeeping and care staff had clear roles and responsibilities around IPC. Staff had access to hand sanitiser, hand-washing facilities and PPE.

The provider had up to date infection prevention and control policies and procedures in place. The standards cleanliness and IPC were regularly audited and where the need for improvement was identified, prompt action was taken.

Overall, we received positive feedback regarding medicines management from people and their family members. People told us they received their medicines safely and at the correct times. One relative said, “Most of the time [my family member] gets their medication.” However, they went on to say that their loved one sometimes had to wait longer for their pain relief medicine. They explained this was when staff who worked less frequently were cautious when administering people’s medicines, so took longer.

Staff told us they received training to manage medicines safely. Training records confirmed this. Staff told us there were systems in place to audit medicines, including daily checks and monthly audits.

There were safe arrangements in place for managing people's medicines. Records showed medicines were safely received, stored, administered, and disposed of. Medicines were stored safely and were well organised. People who had been prescribed 'as required' medicine had guidance in place to show staff how and when this should be administered. Records showed when medicines had been administered, or the reason they were not administered.