Archived: Elm Park Care Home

Updated 2 June 2017

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The unannounced inspection took place on 4 May 2017. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors 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. Their area of expertise included older people and caring for people living with dementia.

Prior to the inspection visit we gathered information from a number of sources. For instance, we looked at notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission and the provider information return [PIR]. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We also obtained the views of professionals who may have visited the home, such as service commissioners and Healthwatch Doncaster. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

At the time of our inspection there were 72 people using the service. We spoke with five people who used the service and 10 relatives. We spoke with two nurses, three care workers, the registered manager, the deputy manager, the residential unit manager and the activities co-ordinator. We also spoke with a visiting incontinence advisor and a community nurse.

We spent time observing care throughout the service. We also used 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 looked at documentation relating to people who used the service and staff, as well as the management of the service. This included reviewing six people’s care records, medication records, audits, policies and procedures and four staff recruitment, training and support files.

Updated 2 June 2017

The unannounced inspection took place on 4 May 2017. The home was previously inspected in March 2015 when the service was rated ‘Good’. This means the service met all relevant fundamental standards.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Elm Park Care Home’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Elm Park is a purpose built care home on the outskirts of Doncaster. The home provides accommodation for up to 75 people on three floors. The care provided is for people who mainly have needs associated with those of older people; this includes a dedicated unit on the first floor for people living with dementia. Nursing care is also provided.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People we spoke with said they were very happy with the way staff delivered care, the social activities available and the general facilities at the home. Throughout our inspection we saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service, as well as with visitors.

People were treated with dignity, respect, kindness and understanding. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the people they cared for, their preferences and abilities.

All the people we spoke with, including staff, told us the home was a safe place to live and work. Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise signs of potential abuse and the reporting procedures. Assessments identified potential risks to people and actions to minimise these risks had been incorporated into the care plans we sampled.

Recruitment processes were thorough, so helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. At the time of the inspection there was sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs. However, a few relatives felt additional staff would be beneficial.

People received their medications safely from staff who had completed medication training.

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 support this practice.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and we found they, or their relatives, had been involved in planning their care. Overall the care files we checked reflected people’s needs and preferences and they had been regularly reviewed and updated.

Staff had access to a varied training programme which helped them meet the needs of people using the service and develop their skill and knowledge. Regular support sessions had been provided to staff, but staff appraisals were not consistent with the provider’s policy. However, staff said they felt well supported and the registered manager was taking action to address any overdue appraisals.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. The people we spoke with said they were happy with the meals provided and we saw they were involved in choosing what they wanted to eat. On the day we visited the dining rooms were relaxed and people who used the service were given time to eat their meal leisurely.

There was a system in place to tell people how to raise concerns and how these would be managed. Any concerns raised had been addressed in a timely manner, and action taken to make improvement, if it was found changes were needed.

Systems were in place to assess if the home was operating correctly and people were satisfied with the service provided. This included meetings, surveys and regular audits. Where necessary action plans had been put in place to address any areas that needed improving.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.