Elm View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Risk assessments were now reflective of people’s current needs to guide staff in providing safe care and support and staff understood risks to people and how to report them. Supervisions with staff were now being held to ensure they were competent for their roles and could meet people’s needs. At the last assessment we found documentation held for staff training and competencies were not up-to-date. We found improvements had been made.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

People and their relatives told us they felt safe. A person told us, “Yes I feel very safe.” A relative said, “they have looked after (person) well and kept them safe”. We heard mixed views from people and their relatives about staffing levels and the effectiveness of the call bell system at the service. People said, “they could do with more (staff)” and “when I need the toilet, I have to wait for them (staff) to come”. Some relatives told us waiting times for call bells can be long. A relative said “There are delays in answering the call bell, particularly at night.” However, people also said, “they are pretty good with me” and “sometimes they come straight away, sometimes it is 15 minutes, I expect that, they (staff) are busy”. Relatives were aware the service was working to improve call bell wait times. People and their relatives told us staff were well trained. One person told us, “The training programme seems all right.” And a relative said, “Yes the staff seem to be professional and friendly.”

Staff told us people were safe. Staff told us “The main priority is the safety of everyone” and “No I haven’t got any concerns” for people’s safety. Staff told us there were sometimes delays to responding to call bells in the afternoons. However, the manager told us a recent review of the response process had improved response times. This was supported by recent call bell audits we saw. The home was using minimal agency staff, when it did, they used the same staff for consistency. Staff had the training they needed to be able to do their jobs well. A staff member said, “I have had loads of training; they have really done well on that.” Staff told us they receive supervisions, they were “good” and supportive and provided them with feedback, such as providing sufficient detail when recording care notes. Staff had a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and gaining people’s consent to care.

People were being provided with care that assured us that staff understood people's needs and were following their care plans. There were refurbishment works being undertaken at the home. We observed staff and the manager were limiting restrictions to people’s routines where possible. We observed people within the home spend time in the garden area. Positive interactions were seen between staff and residents throughout the day of our on site assessment. We saw staff treated residents with kindness and respect. People had drinks and items they needed within reach, including their pendants, which they could press if they needed assistance from staff. People were encouraged to take part in activities with the service’s activity coordinator. Where we observed a person may require support, we informed staff, and they went to support the person straight away. We also observed a company trainer completing competency assessments with staff on the day of our on-site visit.

The service was providing nursing and care staffing in line with their dependency tool. Staff were now receiving regular supervision to ensure they were competent for their role and support their well-being. Specific areas of development for staff had been identified such as, providing information to staff in areas such as falls protocols, medicines and improving the detail of care note records. Staff had now received training to enable them to provide safe care. This included training in moving and handling, safeguarding and basic life support. Overall training compliance was high and monitored regularly. Competency assessments were being completed and the service had a detailed training action plan in place. However non mandatory training and historic competency assessments completed were currently held in staff personnel files, which meant they was not easily accessible. The regional manager planned to address this.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.