Archived: Elmet House

Updated 4 May 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 checked 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 16 February 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events such as accidents or incidents, which the provider is required to send us by law. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIR was submitted within the required timescale.

We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, four staff members and three visiting professionals. We also spoke with three people who used the service and four relatives. Following our visit, we had telephone calls with a further four health professionals. We used the Short Observation Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to observe care and support being delivered by staff at the home. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who cannot talk with us. The care records for three people were looked at. We also looked at other important documentation relating to people who used the service such as incident and accident records and medication administration records. We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, actions were taken in line with the current legislation.

A selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service was looked at. This included four staff recruitment files, training records, staff rotas, minutes of meetings with staff, complaints and quality assurance audits.

Updated 4 May 2018

The Inspection took place on 16 February 2018 and it was unannounced. At the last inspection, the service was rated good. At this inspection the service remains good in safe, effective and well led and has improved in caring and responsive.

Home Lea House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Home Lea House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 29 older people which includes two respite spaces. Bedrooms are single occupancy and the majority have en-suite toilet facilities. Communal lounges, a dining room and bathing facilities are provided.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and family members told us staff were exceptionally caring and had gone the "extra mile" to provide outstanding care. Staff treated people with dignity and respect, and enabled people to maintain their independence.

People, their relatives and staff were very proud of the home they lived and worked in. People and their families had been fully involved in the care planning process and their care plans were kept continually under review to enable staff to provide responsive care to meet people’s changing needs.

People felt safe and fully supported by staff who knew them well. Person centred care planning was evident throughout our inspection and a high level of engagement with people about their previous life experiences and hobbies. Staff took time to ensure activities in the home were planned and focused around people's experiences and interests. People were actively encouraged to share their life experiences with others and the service worked closely with other services and organisations in the local wider community to enhance people's lives.

Staff were well trained and demonstrated the skills, knowledge and experience to care for people effectively. For example, staff had the knowledge and skills required to meet the needs of people who lived with dementia. This training was evident in all staff interactions with people.

The provider had a robust recruitment process in place which ensured that qualified and experienced staff were employed at the home. Staff received support and had a good understanding of how to keep people safe, identify signs of abuse and report these appropriately.

There were enough staff working at all times to ensure people's needs were fully met. People received their medication safely as prescribed and the records were of a good clear standard. Staff had been trained in the prevention of infection and there were sufficient domestic staff employed to ensure the home was clean. The environment was well maintained, kept clean and was safe and hygienic.

People were appropriately supported where they needed help with meals and drinks. The service accommodated people's individual preferences and had prepared meals to order to ensure that people had sufficient, appetising food that suited their taste. Staff ensured people's healthcare needs were met and worked well in partnership with other professionals to ensure that people received the best possible healthcare. Health care professionals were highly complementary on the care and support people received in the home.

The provider worked in line with other legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure that people had as much choice and control over their lives as possible. People were supported to maintain their independence whilst staff ensured they were kept safe by minimising risks. Where people were deprived of their liberty for safety reasons the service had completed the appropriate forms and had authorisations in place to do so.

A robust system of governance in the service meant people received safe and effective care. The system fully involved people and the actions taken by the service showed that all staff and management were quick to make the improvements. The registered manager felt strongly that the only way to continually improve the service for people was to ensure that they were at the heart of it.