Elm Park Lodge

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 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 registered manager made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, and wellbeing needs with them.

The registered manager assessed people’s needs in order to understand the associated risks. They created clear and detailed care plans including personal behavioural support plans to help staff to manage people’s needs, especially when they were distressed. Although, some risks had been missed, there was a culture of routinely assessing people’s care needs.

The registered manager planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them. They did this in line with legislation and current good practice and standards.

A health professional spoke positively of how the registered manager and staff responded to people’s physical and mental health needs at the home. Staff and managers followed best practice in requesting health referrals. When the registered manager found some professionals not engaging, they advocated for people to try to make this happen.

The registered manager 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.

The registered manager was supporting some people to move onto a more suitable care home which would meet their needs in the near future. They were being proactive to ensure these people moved homes in a manged and planned way and did not need to be moved urgently, which could have a detrimental effect on them.

The registered manager supported people to manage their health and wellbeing needs. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People saw health professionals when they needed to. People were supported to go out in the summer which was people’s preference and to make use of the garden at the home. Staff also encouraged people to engage with the weekly wellbeing and exercise sessions at the home.

The registered manager routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to try and ensure outcomes for people were positive.

People’s medicines were reviewed regularly by professionals, the registered manager checked this was happening. The registered manager also monitored people’s needs and tried to find ways to manage some people’s mental and physical health needs, to enable them to continue living at the home.

The registered manager and staff told people about their rights around consent. But there were shortfalls in the associated paperwork.

Staff sought people's consent with key parts of their daily lives. However, a person’s care needs were not always recorded accurately in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005). A person’s care records were contradictory about their needs in relation to expressing consent and being able to make decisions for themselves. These records also referred to their relative as having a power of attorney when they did not. (This allows an appointed individual to make decisions; the person would have made if they had not lacked mental capacity to do so.) When we spoke with staff, they were clear with us this person’s relative was being consulted with and making some day to day decisions for this person. There were also references to this person’s liberty being restricted in their care plans, which was confirmed to not be the case by the registered manager. Following our feedback the registered manager said they would review this person’s paperwork.