The Elms Care Centre

Updated 3 February 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 20 January 2022 and was announced/unannounced. We gave the service one day’s notice of the inspection.

Updated 3 February 2022

The Elms Care Centre (“The Elms”) was inspected on the 17 and 18 December 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

The Elms is registered to provide accommodation for nursing and personal care for up to 37 older people. During the inspection 34 people were living at the service. Nursing care is provided to people.

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 had some information of concern that we looked at during this inspection. This included how the service looked after people’s skin to ensure they did not develop pressure sores. Also, how the service checked staff were kind and considerate. We found there no concerns about these two matters during this inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People and their relatives all described the service as caring. We observed staff being patient, responsive and kind. There was a calm atmosphere in the service. People's privacy was important to staff and was respected. People, where possible, or their representatives, were fully involved in decisions about the care and support they received. People were supported emotionally and were involved in deciding how they wanted their treatment needs to be met. Every effort was made to make people feel special to the staff and maintain links with their community, work life and those important to them.

People’s medicines were administered and managed safely. We have however, recommended the registered manager reviews people’s records to ensure they consistently record people’s current medicines and topical creams.

People continued to receive care from staff who were knowledgeable and had the skills required to support them. Staff were competent and trained well. People had the support needed to help them have maximum choice and control of their lives in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported good practice. People's wellbeing and healthcare needs were monitored by the staff and people accessed healthcare professionals when required.

The care people received was personalised and was responsive to people's individual needs. Each person could make choices about their day to day lives. People’s end of life needs were met in a careful, supportive and personalised way. Any concerns or complaints were quickly acted on and investigated. People were supported to take part in a range of activities according to their individual interests. People’s faith and cultural needs were respected and met.

The service was well led. People and staff told us the registered manager was approachable. The registered manager sought people's views to make sure people were at the heart of any changes within the home. The registered manager and provider had monitoring systems in place which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.

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.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.