Elmwood House Nursing Home

The home is located on the outskirts of Boston and has been well adapted and converted to meet the needs of residents.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Elmwood House Nursing Home ensured current government guidelines in relation to COVID-19 were being followed by staff and visitors to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the home. This included comprehensive checks for visitors and staff on arrival to the home and numerous hand sanitising and personal protective equipment points throughout the building.

All staff had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Registered Manager had a methodical and structured approach to recording individuals COVID-19 vaccination status and test results.

Elmwood House Nursing Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 30 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 43 people.

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

The registered manager was no longer in post. However, the provider had ensured there was a temporary manager in post and an application for their registration was in process. Whilst staff spoke highly of the manager, some were uncertain about future leadership of the service. The provider had plans in place to ensure staff were supported whilst they recruited a new manager. There were effective quality monitoring systems in place which identified shortfalls in the service. People, staff and relatives were involved in the service.

Relatives, staff and people told us they felt there weren’t always enough staff. People told us they felt safe using the service and they received support with medicines from staff. Staff knew how to keep people safe and information about how to raise a concern was accessible. Measures were in place to reduce the risk of infection to people.

People’s dietary needs were met, and they had food they enjoyed. People’s needs had been assessed prior to admission to the service. Staff received induction and ongoing training. The service had undergone a large refurbishment and the environment met the needs of people. People had access to ongoing health care service and had their capacity assessed where required.

Whilst some staff interacted with people positively, others showed a lack of interaction. People felt they were supported and treated well. Staff considered people’s dignity and spoke to them with respect. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and skills.

People had personalised care plans in place. Information was accessible to people in different formats. People enjoyed activities they took part in, but people felt this lacked at times. The provider had a complaints policy and informal concerns were recorded. People’s end of life wishes was recorded and relatives spoke highly of end of life care delivered.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

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

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 27 March 2019) and we found a breach of regulation relating to governance in the service. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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.

People’s experience of using this service: People told us they felt safe and that staff supported them well. There were enough staff deployed to meet the needs of people.

Medicines were not always managed safely; there were gaps in the records for medicine administration.

People enjoyed the meals and their dietary needs had been catered for. Information was recorded in care plans and shared with kitchen staff.

Activities were available to people. The well-being coordinator was working to further develop the opportunities for people to engage in activities that were meaningful and relevant to them.

The home was in the process of refurbishment work to improve the living environment. People were involved in decisions about the redecoration of the home.

Care plans and risk assessments contained person-centred information and were reviewed and updated for people. End of life care plans were not in place for all people. Some records we viewed were blank and did not evidence any discussions had taken place.

There were gaps in training the provider had deemed mandatory and not all staff had received a yearly appraisal.

The home did not have a manager registered with CQC. A manager had been recruited and was due to commence employment in March 2019.

A range of audits were completed to support the quality and running of the home. Audits had identified areas of development. However, in some cases the actions had not been completed to deliver improvements.

Rating at last inspection: This is the first inspection of this location since a change in the provider’s registration.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to give a first rating for the service under their new registration.

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