Elton Park Care Home

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

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. This key question has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

People’s care plans reflected their needs and how these needs were being met. These were kept up to date and people’s views were sought, for example in the resident of the day and reviews. Changes to care records were made, when for example, there were changes in people’s needs and guidance was received from external professionals. The manager told us how the team had done a lot of work recently to ensure care plans were up to date and reflected people’s needs.

The provider and manager had told us they had identified improvements were needed in how people’s daily notes were completed and actions were being taken to address this. We reviewed daily notes and found although people’s personal care needs were recorded, there was very little to show how people had presented and social interactions outside of planned activities and family visits. In addition, where people had refused personal care support, there was no follow up evidence to show people had been offered this support later. The manager told us, they had done an exercise with staff to write down all they had done in their shift, they had not put chatting and interacting with people, they had developed examples and were monitoring the improvements.

There was an activity folder in place which showed some one-to-one activity in place, for people who chose to stay in their bedrooms. However, these were not showing any recent activity, in addition, there was a lack of evidence available in the daily notes. Although the management team told us staff interacted with people, we were not assured there was enough social interaction provided, specifically for people who stayed in their bedrooms. One relative told us, “Family member] says [they] can be in [their] room and does not see staff for long periods, [family member] mentions that quite a lot, seeing a face would be good.” Another relative told us how their family member preferred their own company and did not usually like to participate in activities, however they said the staff had encouraged them and they had enjoyed a quiz, which they had not expected.

Monthly newsletters had stated which included what had been happening in the service and what was planned for the following month. The manager told us they were sent to relatives as well as provided to people.

There was a garden where people mainly show smoked sat together, there was also a courtyard, which was not being used during our visits. The manager told us they were looking at available garden furniture which was safe and accessible for people to use, such as getting up and sitting safely.

The provider 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’s care records included their diverse needs and how they impacted on their daily living. Guidance was provided to staff in how people’s needs were to be met. A staff member told us how people’s individual needs were being met and explained how care plans were being kept updated when changes happened in their daily lives. This included working with external professionals and documenting and implementing changes in the care provision, as required.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity and in people’s specific needs, including mental health awareness and dementia.

There was an activity coordinator in place, however they were due to go on leave the end of July 2025, the manager told us they were recruiting to the role and a bank staff member would be covering the role.

During our visits we saw people participating with a visiting entertainer, lots of visitors from relatives, and a staff member gave people a manicure. However, during our first visit, a group of people were doing a quiz with a staff member, another staff member came into the shared area and put some music on, which was not respectful of the people participating. We noted the chairs had not been moved so people participating in the quiz could hear better.

Some people went out weekly into the community with an organisation who supported older people, some people were taken out to the shops by staff and some people went out in the community with their relatives. The manager told us how they could source community transport to take people out, including to a local farm, but the numbers of people were reduced due to the transport available. Various activities were provided including a therapy dog, which people enjoyed, visiting entertainers, monthly armchair boxercise and monthly visits from a local church. There was a garden party booked for 2 August 2025. A person told us, “I like the bingo and quizzes, have a singer, once a month church service, play hockey sometimes and that is good fun, I would like more physical things and more colouring and drawing.” A relative said, “Pat dog comes, church service and entertainers come.”

The manager told us how they were working to improve in people’s social activity and contacts in the community, they were organising visits from animals such as alpacas, takeaway nights, and cultural days with some staff offering to cook. The manager had also contacted an armed forces veteran organisation and a local football club.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care records included information for staff in how they communicated and any support they required. The manager told us a person used an electronic device to aid their communication, although the person did not always choose to use it.

Where people required important information in accessible formats, this was provided. The menu was in both text and pictures, so this was accessible to people to enable them to make their choices about what they wanted to eat.

The provider 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.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place. Complaints were managed in line with the provider’s policy.

A relative told us when they raised concerns they were mostly listened to and addressed. Another relative told us when they had spoken with staff about the provision of their family member’s personal care, they noted improvements.

Meetings were held for relatives, however, the provider told us there were low attendance to these meetings. The minutes for these meetings showed relatives had said they felt comfortable speaking with staff if there were any concerns. We received feedback from some relatives who felt they did not need to attend the meetings and could speak with staff when they visited.

A suggestion box was in place and forms available for people using the service, visitors and staff to add their suggestions and comments, anonymously if required. The manager said there were not yet many suggestions being received as the system was new and people needed to get used to using it and knowing their suggestions will be acted on.

Satisfaction surveys were in the process of being completed for this year, the previous surveys were from June 2024.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Actions were taken to ensure the people using the service received the care they needed and that the other professionals involved in people’s care were delivering the service required. The manager told us how they had changed the pharmacy as they were not always responsive to their needs.

The manager told us they had been liaising with a local university, where university students provided oral care training and spoke with staff and people using the service. An agreement had been made for people who could mobilise to attend the university surgery.

The manager was considering how they could seek people’s views when they did not choose to attend ‘residents’ meetings’ to ensure people’s voices were equally valued.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

A person had told us they did not like to go to the dining room for their meals due to an experience when they first moved in involving another person. When we told the manager about this they spoke with the person and invited them to a meal with them in the dining room.

The manager was considering how they could seek people’s views when they did not choose to attend ‘residents’ meetings’ to ensure people’s voices were equally valued.

People were 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.

People’s care records included their decisions about the care they wished to receive if they became ill or were assessed as needing end of life care. This included where they wished to be cared for, if they required resuscitation and any end of life arrangements they had in place, such as identified funeral directors.