Elmhurst Short Stay Service

Elmhurst Short Stay Service is a residential care home that provides personal care for up to 27 older people. The service mainly offers short-term care including respite breaks and emergency stays. The service supported 20 people at the time of our inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received the care they needed to keep them safe and well. Staff used risk assessments and care plans to support people based on their needs and preferences. The care home had very high standards of cleanliness and hygiene. Staff complied with good infection control practices when supporting people such as wearing personal protective equipment. People received their medicines safely.

People looked healthy and well. The service worked closely with other health and social care services to ensure people received the right care at the right time. People had access to a wide range of activities to support their health and wellbeing. People received support that gave them maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service had a stable staff team who knew people well. Staff received the appropriate training and supervision to help them support people effectively and had access to a wide range of further training and development opportunities.

The service promoted high quality, person-centred care and had an open and honest culture.

People gave positive feedback about the staff and the service. They described the staff as friendly and caring. Staff enjoyed their work. They described the managers as supportive and approachable.

The provider had robust governance arrangements; regional and local managers used a range of governance systems, tools and processes to assess the quality of the service and identify areas that needed attention. The provider showed a strong commitment to learning lessons and continuous improvement, and proactively sought out opportunities for development and innovation.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 22 January 2019).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At our last inspection we rated the service 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 ongoing 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.

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. At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in place. The registered manager was not available to facilitate the inspection, but other members of the management team were present and assisted with the process.

The service had appropriate safeguarding procedures and staff had received training in safeguarding. Recruitment procedures were robust and staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

General and individual risk assessments were in place at the service. The service had relevant, up to date health and safety records and fire safety measures and documentation were in place. Accidents and incidents were logged appropriately and medicines systems were safe.

The care files were had appropriate health and personal information. Support plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated regularly.

Staff induction was thorough and staff received appropriate on-going training. There were three-monthly staff supervisions and annual appraisals.

People’s nutritional needs were recorded and adhered to and people told us the food was good. The premises were clutter free and adapted for ease of use by people whose mobility was restricted or who required the use of equipment to get around.

The service sought consent from people who used the service, where required and worked within the legal requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People told us they were treated with kindness and compassion and we observed staff interacting in a kind and friendly way with people who used the service. Privacy and dignity was respected and people were well presented.

People of different religions, beliefs, backgrounds and preferences were treated with equal regard and supported in a way that ensured their diversity was considered.

Care files evidenced that people were involved in discussions around their care and support needs. The service was aware of confidentiality and data protection legislation and records were stored securely.

Care files we looked at were person-centred and included information about the individual. There was a range of activities on offer and information was displayed around the home to help ensure people were aware of what was happening. This information was clear and easy to read to help ensure it was accessible to as many people as possible.

There was an appropriate complaints policy and complaints were logged and followed up appropriately. The service had received a number of compliments.

People told us the management team were approachable. The service worked well with health and social care partners.

There were three monthly team meetings and monthly management meetings. There were a number of quality assurance checks in place. To help drive improvement to service delivery.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The service had a registered manager. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We undertook this inspection on 28 April and 03 May 2016. This comprehensive inspection was unannounced and conducted by one inspector.

We found the administration of medicines was safe. The system was audited to check for errors and staff had their competency checked regularly.

People who used the service said food was good. People were given a nutritious diet and had choices in the food they were offered. We saw meals were unhurried and staff interacted well with people to make it an enjoyable experience. People were supported to take their meals and drinks.

Staff we spoke with were aware of how to protect vulnerable people and had safeguarding policies and procedures to guide them which included the contact details of the local authority to report to.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities to help protect their health and welfare.

Most staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was aware of her responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

We observed there was a good interaction between staff and people who used the service. Family members told us staff were kind, knowledgeable and caring.

We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed. Plans of care contained people’s personal preferences so they could be treated as individuals.

There was a record kept of any complaints and we saw the manager took action to investigate and reach satisfactory outcomes for the concerns, incidents or accidents to reach satisfactory outcomes. There had not been any complaints since the last inspection.

Staff, people who used the service and family members all told us managers were approachable and supportive.

Staff meetings gave staff the opportunity to be involved in the running of the home and discuss their training needs.

The manager conducted sufficient audits to ensure the quality of the service provided was maintained or improved.

The environment was maintained at a good level and homely in character. We saw several rooms were being decorated on the days of the inspection.