The Royal Elms Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked at 3 quality statements in this domain. Relatives said communication with the home was good and they were able to raise any questions or concerns with the registered manager. They said these would be addressed straight away. People and relatives were also positive about the care and support they received. Staff knew people’s needs and how to support them. Relatives had been involved in agreeing people’s care and support when they moved to the home and were kept up to date with any changes. Systems were in place to make referrals to other professionals when required. However, 1 referral had not been followed up for 2 months when the home had not had a response. The home had used a translator to communicate with 1 person whose first language was not English.

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.

Relatives said they were kept informed about any changes in people’s health, wellbeing or support needs. One relative said, “They keep me abreast of any developments and let me know if there’s anything out of the ordinary.” They said the staff team knew people’s support needs. Relatives said they had completed information about people’s life history, preferences likes and dislikes when they first moved to the Royal Elms.

Staff said they knew people’s needs and were made aware when any changes in people’s needs through handover meetings. A deputy manager said they went through people’s care plans with them where possible. They said families were involved in agreeing the support people needed when they first moved to the home. They said they would inform relatives of any changes in people’s needs.

Relatives were kept informed of any changes in people’s support needs. There was no evidence recorded people, or their families, were involved in reviewing their care plans to ensure they remained current. We observed some kind and dignified interactions between staff and people living at the home. However, it was evident the staff team were stretched as people had to wait for support. We observed one person who had spilt their breakfast across their clothing, leaving a large wet patch. They were not supported to change for nearly an hour. We also saw some interactions that were not person centred. For example, a member of staff stood over 1 person when they were supporting them with their meal. The person was becoming agitated with this. The registered manager said they had raised this issue previously and would follow up on our observations. Another member of staff was supporting a different person with their meal, but there was no communication with the person during this support.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Relatives said communication with the home was good. They were able to speak with the staff on duty or phone the manager and deputy managers whenever they needed to.

Staff said they gave people choices where ever possible, for example what they wanted to eat or which clothes they wanted to wear. The registered manager said they tried to respond to any concerns raised with them within 24 hours.

A complaints policy was in place. There had been no formal complaints made to the home in 2024. We saw previous complaints had ben responded to in a timely way.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Relatives said other professionals were involved in people’s support when needed, for example GP, the falls team or the crisis team if their relative was unwell.

Processes were in place to make referrals for specialist support. However, a referral to the SALT had not been followed up in a timely manner. The district nurse said the referrals to their service were appropriate.

Processes were in place to make referrals for specialist support. However, a referral to the SALT had not been followed up in a timely manner. The district nurse said the referrals to their service were appropriate.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.