The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Elm House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

201 Waterloo Road, Cobridge, Stoke On Trent, Staffordshire, ST6 2HS (01782) 201837

Provided and run by:
Claremont Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

20 February 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 20 February 2015 and was unannounced.

Our last inspection took place on 19 September 2014. During that inspection a number of concerns were identified. We told the provider that improvements were required to ensure people received care that was safe. At this inspection we found that the required improvements had been made.

Elm House provides personal care and accommodation to eight people who have a learning disability and complex care needs. There were seven male users of the service in residence at the time of the inspection.

The manager for the service was in the process of applying to register with us. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were protected from avoidable harm because risks to people’s health and wellbeing were well managed, and the staff had the knowledge and skills to keep people safe. People’s medicines were store and managed safely.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and keep people safe. Staff were properly recruited and received training that provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs effectively.

Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and support. When people did not have the ability to make decisions about their care, the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. But there had been a failure to recognise an unlawful restriction and request an authorisation under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) processes. These requirements ensure that where appropriate, decisions are made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves.

People were supported to access food and drink of their choice, and their independence was promoted. Advice from health and social care professionals was sought when required and people’s health and wellbeing needs were monitored.

Staff treated people with kindness and their dignity and privacy was promoted. People were encouraged to make choices about their care and the staff respected the choices people made.

People were involved in the planning of the care, it was delivered in accordance with their care preferences. They were supported to be independent. People could participate in leisure and social based activities as they chose.

People’s feedback was sought and used to improve the care. People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

There was a positive atmosphere within the home and the manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure standards were met and maintained.

19 September 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection because we had received concerns about some aspects of the service. Our inspection was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we were going to inspect.

Prior to the inspection we had received information and concerns about staffing levels, environmental and infection control issues, safeguarding and fire safety. We liaised with the relevant agencies such as the fire service, environmental health services, the local authority safeguarding team and quality monitoring team before our inspection. They carried out their own checks of the service and reported their findings to us and the provider. At the time of the inspection the provider was working through their action plans to address the areas of concern identified.

During this inspection we asked the following question:

Is the service safe?

The service was not safe because the provider had no always ensured that staffing levels were maintained at safe minimum levels to support people's needs.

The environmental health officer had also visited the service and identified improvements to be made in relation to infection control, hygiene and safety. The officer told us they would be returning to assess how the provider addressed the concerns they have identified. We found that some areas of the service were not clean and essential risk assessments had not been reviewed.

We found that fire safety records were not maintained to a satisfactory standard in that the provider could not evidence that all staff had received fire safety training, or fire drills and fire safety risk assessments were not up to date. The fire safety officer was informed of our finding and will be returning to assess how the provider addresses the concerns we have identified.

The service did not have a registered manager in charge of the home at the time of our inspection. Our records show the previous registered manager had left the service in June 2014, the provider had not communicated this to us, but had since recruited a replacement manager. We were told their employment had commenced the week before our inspection.

09/04/2014

During a routine inspection

Elm House is a care home for eight people and provided care and support to adults with a learning disability.

People who used the service told us they were happy living at the home and they felt safe with the staff.

The service had a registered manager in post. There were clear management structures offering support and leadership. This meant the home had a positive and open culture.

We found that people were involved in decisions about their care and support. The staff made appropriate referrals to other professionals and community services. We saw they understood people’s needs, were kind and thoughtful towards them, and treated them respectfully.

We saw the staff had received the training they needed to meet the needs of the people living at Elm House. We saw there were also sufficient staff to meet these needs.

We looked at how medication was administered, recorded, stored and managed. We found suitable systems were in place. This meant that people who used the service received their medication in a safe and well managed way.

People spoke positively about the range of activities in the home and in the community. We saw people could choose how to spend their time and what to do.

We found that the home was clean and hygienic but improvements to the standard of the environment and the décor were needed.

Records showed that CQC had been notified, as required by law in relation to the incidents that could affect the health, safety and welfare of people.

17 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We talked with two people who lived in the home and observed interactions between staff and people who were not able to communicate well with us. The two people we spoke with said, "I came to have a look around. It's okay I think I may stay for a bit" and, "It's okay duck".

They told us that they could choose the things they wanted to do and were involved in deciding where they went on a day to day basis. Although people told us they were happy we observed some interactions between staff and people who used the service that demonstrated a lack of understanding or were not respectful.

We saw that people's care records were up to date and people we spoke with knew about the support they needed, including any restrictions in place to protect them from the risk of harm. Where risk had been identified there was clear guidance for staff to follow.

People told us they felt safe and knew who to go to for advice if they were unhappy with any aspect of their care. Staff told us how they would report suspected abuse and how they helped to support people who may become anxious and exhibit behaviour that may put them or other people at risk of harm.

Staff told us that they attended meetings to discuss their performance individually with the manager or as a team, to ensure that they were able to resolve any concerns or issues or to discuss any training needs. Records showed that staff had received mandatory training

4 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection as part of our schedule of inspections to check on the care and welfare of people who used this service. The visit was unannounced, which meant that the registered provider and the staff did not know we were coming.

We spoke with two people who used this service, one relative and three members of staff. People told us that they liked living in the home. One person said, "It's okay here I can do what I want to". Relatives we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care provided.

The atmosphere was calm and settled throughout our visit. People we spoke with were positive about their experiences at Elm House; they were able to have free access to all areas of their home, participate in household tasks and were supported to be independent. We saw that people were supported to make decisions and were involved in the planning of their care. We saw that people were treated with care and respect.

We saw that people were supported to access the community and that appropriate risk management plans were in place to promote independence.

We saw that staff had the required knowledge and skills to provide the level of care that people required. We also saw that people using the service were protected from harm, abuse and neglect. Arrangements for the management of people's finances were in place.

People's personal information was protected because the service had secure storage facilities.

2 December 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited this service because concerns had been identified and we needed to check that improvements had been made since our last visit. The visit was unannounced. This means that the service did not know that we were coming.

We involve people who use services and family carers to help us improve the way we inspect and write our inspection reports. Because of their unique knowledge and experience of using health and care services, we have called them experts by experience. Our experts by experience are people of all ages, from diverse cultural backgrounds who have used a range of health and/or social care services. An expert by experience took part in this inspection, was supported by a mentor and talked to the people who used the service. They looked at what happened in the home and what it was like for the people who lived there. They took some notes and wrote a report about what they found and details are included in this report.

A summary of their comments included, "General impression of staff friendly, happy and with great sense of humour. We were given a tour of the property and it had spacious rooms. It was nice to watch one person with a staff member talking about making a cup of tea. They really engaged well with them. One of my main concerns is that one of the rooms had a smell of urine."

We spoke to people using the service, comments included, "I can do what I want to and staff help me." "I go to the pub and like to go the shops." "Yes I know who my key staff are and they tell me about my care plans." "I can't remember if staff talk to me about care plans."

We looked at staffing levels and were concerned that there were some deficits between the number of staff provided and the number needed to provide appropriate levels of care and support.

We looked at medication management and noted some improvements since our last visit. One person was self administering medication, this means their independence in this area had been promoted.

We looked at how the service protects people, because we were aware of a number of recent safeguarding alerts. This means there had been concerns that people using the service were at risk of abuse or had been involved in incidents that needed to be reported and looked into to ensure people were being safely supported.