Elm View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People now had thorough care plans to guide safe practice. People were involved in the development and review of their care plans. Records around people’s capacity contained all relevant information and was documented in line with guidance. Risk assessments and care plans contained detailed information around what support people needed, as well as their likes and dislikes. At the last assessment we found concerns around documentation being accurate in respect of each service user. At this assessment we found improvement had been made.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they had input into their care plans and received the care and treatment they wanted. People could make changes to their care. One person told us, “I can raise it with them (staff).” People told us they could see a doctor or nurse if they wanted to. We saw records of discussions with people where they had requested changes to their care, for example a person asked for a sensor mat to be removed. The person’s care plan showed that this change had been implemented at their request. Relatives told us they had been involved in discussions about their loved one’s care needs, this included when there were any changes in their support needs. We heard when relatives had discussed people’s care needs “the team seem to have supported (name of person) well” and “they (management) dealt with it very effectively and listened immediately.”

Staff told us care plans contained all the information they required to provide safe care and support, this included risk assessments. We heard a flag system was in place within care plans to ensure risks to people were highlighted and easily visible. Staff were aware if people were on modified diets and where this information was recorded. If staff had concerns around people’s choking risk, they knew how to raise this. The manager was reviewing people’s assessments, for example mental capacity and mobility assessments. They showed us an example of a completed assessment, which they said they plan to use to coach senior members of the team in the assessment process. The manager provided examples of how they had involved people in reviewing their care needs, following a person-centred approach. People had signed consent forms and care plans where they had capacity to do so. Relatives also had access to read and review care plans when they wished to via a resident’s gateway.

We reviewed 4 care plans as part of our assessment. Care plans confirmed important information about the person, they were person centred with detailed risk assessments and advanced care plans in place. People had clear mobility plans and pressure risk assessments that detailed the support required for different tasks and actions to be taken to reduce risks. Care plans contained important information such as, medical history, preferences for personal care, things that were important to the person and what they did and did not like. People’s communication preferences, religious and cultural needs were detailed. Dietary information was now recorded consistently throughout care plans, including any Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) input or steps in place to support a SALT referral. Care plans were regularly reviewed and people were involved in their reviews. Care plan audits were identifying areas that required updating and audit compliance percentages were gradually increasing.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.