Elm Lodge

Ratings

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Good

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

Elm Lodge is a 'care home' with nursing. The service is registered to support up to 75 older people. At the time of the inspection 59 people were living at the service. The London Borough of Ealing funded or partly funded all the people who lived at the service. This is because they had a contract for the places there. The home is divided into 5 units. Each unit can accommodate up to 15 people. The units had self-contained communal lounges and dining rooms. This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. We carried out 2 unannounced visits on 19 and 20 March 2024 as part of this assessment. The visits were conducted by 2 inspectors, a nurse specialist advisor, a member of the CQC medicines team and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. We spoke with 19 people who lived at the service and 1 visiting relative. We received written feedback from 4 other relatives. We observed how people were being cared for and supported. Our observations included 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. We spoke with staff on duty, looked at the environment, how medicines were being managed and looked at records used by the provider for managing the service. These included care records, staff records and audits.

People's experience of this service

People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. Their needs had been assessed and planned for. Improvements were needed to some of the processes for managing medicines. However, people generally received safe care. The provider had learnt from things that went wrong and had improved the service because of these. There were effective systems for monitoring and improving quality. People were cared for by kind staff. The staff felt well supported by managers and had the information and training they needed to provide good quality care.