Elton Park 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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service, or if placed in an emergency as soon as possible. The needs assessments were used to inform people’s care plans and risk assessments which were kept under review. The manager told us how they visited people, such as in their home, hospital or other care setting to assess their needs with the people’s input and from other professionals and/or relatives where appropriate.

A person told us about the needs assessment prior to moving in, “I applied to come and manager came to my home and we chatted for 1.5 hours.” We received mixed views from relatives. A person’s relative told us they had not been asked about their family member’s needs before they moved into the service. However, they did tell us they spoke with staff regularly and had recently had a telephone call from a staff member relating to the person’s care plan. Another relative said they were consulted about their family member’s care needs when they first moved in.

The manager told us people and their relatives were spoken with in the monthly resident of the day process and more formal care reviews were planned three monthly. Any changes which happened outside of this were documented. The manager told us how they had worked hard to improve the care plans, and this work was ongoing.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

A ‘resident of the day’ system was in place. This included speaking with the person about their views of the service they received, if their needs were being met and any changes they required.

The provider’s policies and procedures included reference to industry recognised good practice guidelines. The provider kept up to date with changes in legislation and good practice, and these were incorporated into policies and procedures and training.

People’s needs and risks were assessed in relation to nutrition and hydration. Catering staff told us they were updated with people’s specific dietary needs and any risks and showed us a whiteboard in the kitchen which detailed people’s needs.

People’s care plans did not always include a recommended fluid intake for each day. The manager told us they would speak with the GP service to ensure people’s individual needs were considered. However, people’s drinks were recorded and were monitored daily. The manager told us, if low intake was noted by staff, further encouragement was provided to drink. Drinks were being provided throughout our visits, and people told us they had access to ice creams and ice lollies in the warm weather. A relative said, “They are very good on hydration and [family member] always has a drink.” A person told us they got tea and coffee and also had a juice jug in their bedroom.

We received mixed feedback about the quality of the food provided. One person said, “Food was wonderful when I first came, but it has gone downhill. It is not good quality.” We told the manager about the concerns we had received about the quality of the food. They were aware and actions were being taken to improve, this included consulting with people on the menu and changes in the catering staff. A new chef started working in the service the week of our inspection visits.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Where there were concerns about people’s wellbeing, appropriate referrals were made, such as to the GP, dietitian, speech and language therapy team and the falls team. When treatment and guidance had been received from health professionals, this was incorporated into people’s care plans.

The manager told us they had good relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care. This included commissioners, mental health teams and the GP service, who undertook weekly ward rounds. There was a communication book in place for the use of staff and the district nursing team.

During our inspection visits we saw a staff member from the GP surgery, a district nurse and a professional to provide foot care.

A staff member explained how they had worked in partnership with health professionals when a person was at risk of pressure injury, this included the provision of equipment to reduce risks.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us they had access to health care professionals when required. One person said, “Saw chiropodist last week, doctor came yesterday, got no problems.” Another person told us, “Went to the dentist three weeks ago.” Another person said, “Nurse comes every two weeks, seen doctor a couple of times, chiropodist every couple of months, optician three months ago.” Where people received support from other professionals, this was documented in care plans and any guidance recorded and followed.

The manager told us the actions taken when blood samples were requested by the GP. This included working with external health care professionals, they shared examples of where it had not been successful to gain blood, or when people were reluctant. The manager said they continued to support people as required.

Where people chose to smoke, they were offered support to reduce or quit, whilst respecting their choices.

People’s care plans identified where they required support with their oral care, including brushing their teeth. However, where care plans stated people were to be supported twice daily, the daily notes did not always show this was provided.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care was routinely monitored and assessed, with consultation with people and their representatives, where appropriate. People’s care plans reflected people’s specific needs, how they impacted on people and how their needs were being met. Care plans were kept under review to ensure any changing needs or preferences were recorded to ensure staff were kept up to date.

Where concerns about people’s wellbeing were identified and referrals made to other professionals, including health care professionals and treatment was recorded, as was guidance, to ensure it was followed by staff.

People’s weights were monitored and any concerns were referred to, for example a dietician. Guidance was incorporated into care plans and followed. This included the provision of a fortified diet and high calorie snacks and drinks, to help reach and maintain a healthy weight. A relative told us their family member had gained weight since moving into the service. Another relative told us their family member had lost weight, but this had started to happen before they moved in. They said they were aware their family member had seen a dietician in the service and were provided with items to increase their weight.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) referrals were made where required and these were kept under review. This reduced the risks of people being deprived unlawfully of their liberty.

People’s care plans included their capacity to make decisions and any support required, such as if decisions would be required to be made in their best interests. A relative told us they understood their family member’s decisions were respected, this was confirmed by another relative who said when their family member refused support this was listened to. People told us they chose what to do in their lives, and they were supported to make their own decisions.

Staff had received training in MCA and DoLS.