Elms House

Updated 10 March 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 was 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 manager about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 23 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 10 March 2022

We carried out an inspection of Elms House on 17 and 18 May 2018. The service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and we looked at both during this inspection. Elms House supports up to six people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Nursing care is not provided. At the time of our inspection six people were living at the home.

At the last inspection, the service was rated 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 on going 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.

Records showed that staff had been recruited safely and the staff we spoke with were aware of how to safeguard adults at risk. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People living at the service and their relatives were happy with staffing levels. They felt that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

People told us staff at the home were kind and caring. They told us staff provided them with support when they needed it.

People told us staff respected their right to privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as they could be. We observed this during the inspection.

Staff received an effective induction and appropriate training when they joined the service. Some staff training had net been updated for some time. We discussed this with the deputy manager and relevant training was updated shortly after our inspection.

People received support with eating and drinking and their healthcare needs were met. Appropriate referrals were made to community health and social care professionals, to ensure that people received appropriate support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, the service had taken appropriate action in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People told us that they received care that reflected their needs, risks and preferences and we found evidence of this. People were regularly supported to take part in a variety of activities in the home and the community. People told us they were happy with the activities available.

Staff communicated effectively with people. They supported people sensitively and did not rush them. People’s communication needs were identified and relevant support was provided, such as information in audio format.

People who lived at the home and their relatives were happy with how the service was being managed. They found the manager and the deputy approachable and supportive. They told us any concerns were resolved quickly. Staff were happy working at the home and felt well supported by the manager and deputy manager.

A variety of audits of quality and safety were completed by the manager and deputy manager regularly. We found the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were maintained at the service. Staffing training had not previously been audited, however, the deputy manager told us this would be included in future audits.

The manager sought feedback from people living at the home through regular service user meetings. We saw evidence that people’s suggestions were acted upon and used to improve the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.