Elmwood Residential Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Some people and relatives were not always aware of their care plans or what was included in them. A relative told us, “I am not aware of any care plan, but I could speak to the manager if I needed to.” Care plans did not contain information about people’s preferences for their care and support needs. A recent quality audit had identified this, and the manager told us they were reviewing care plans. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s preferences and could describe these when speaking about people. They told us they got to know some people well and were able to offer them person centred care.

The manager understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People received required care provisions to meet their needs and there were measures to promote continuity of care. On inspection, we found people were attending medical appointments when required with the provider then following up when something clinical had changed. Some people told us, "The carers are always kind and patient. They make a real effort to help us." Staff engagement was consistently praised for its warmth and attentiveness.

We found inconsistent evidence of people and relatives being involved in planning and reviewing people’s care.

People were given opportunities to raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Opportunities were given to people to respond at their own pace using their preferred method of communication. The inspection found significant communication barriers between staff and people. When people struggled to understand, staff did not adapt their communication style or use tools like pain charts, leading to confusion. One person was unable to understand staff due to language barriers, and in another case, pain assessments were repeatedly carried out without ensuring the person being assessed had understood what was being asked.

Families felt reassured by the care provided, with one stating they had not observed anything concerning but would feel comfortable raising issues if needed. People felt their health needs were managed attentively.

The manager made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. A structured system ensured complaints were properly recorded, investigated, and responded to within appropriate timeframes. There was a complaints policy, and people and relatives told us they knew how to use it and had used it, with satisfactory outcomes for them. Records showed the provider had taken action and responded appropriately to complaints when they were raised.

When necessary, other professionals were informed and involved in the resolution process.

People’s feedback was actively used to drive improvements. For example, a dedicated internal post-box allowed both individuals and staff to share suggestions with the management team.

Management demonstrated a commitment to continually enhancing the service by listening to people’s views and tailoring care to meet individual needs, promoting both quality and safety.

A family member shared they felt confident speaking with the management team, especially the new manager or deputy. They described noticeable improvements since the new manager took over and praised their responsiveness. When a request was made regarding the needs of their father, the manager took immediate action, initiating the process within minutes. The family member expressed strong satisfaction, noting any concerns or requests were addressed promptly and efficiently.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff ensured people could reach or had access to their call bells and responded appropriately when people pressed them. The provider had care plan summaries to share with medical professionals when required which helped to ensure people received the appropriate care in a timely manner. Staff accompanied people to health appointments when needed to ensure people's needs were understood. One person told us, “The carers were careful and explained everything before moving me. I felt safe." People felt reassured by the proper handling and communication during hoisting.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. On inspection, we found some staff had not been provided with the appropriate training necessary to carry out their duties. For example, gaps in training requirements for supporting people with Dementia, Promoting Dignity, Equality and Diversity had not been completed. The concerns identified during this assessment regarding staff training, meant there were times when people who required additional support to communicate their needs or to have their needs anticipated by staff did not always experience the best outcome.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. On inspection, we found not all care plans had been updated with the person’s end of life wishes. The manager told us end of life care plans would be reviewed and updated as required.

One family expressed overwhelming gratitude for the care provided to their loved one, describing their experience as ‘fantastic’ and emphasising the constant availability of staff to talk to. They noted the team's patience and compassion, particularly in maintaining dignity during the person’s end-of-life care. The family felt supported throughout, with no moments of discomfort, and highlighted the staff’s sensitivity toward both them and their children.