• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Elms Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Elm Drive, Louth, Lincolnshire, LN11 0DE (01507) 350100

Provided and run by:
Four Seasons (DFK) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

20 & 21 January 2015

During a routine inspection

The service provides care and support for up to 84 people, some of whom may experience memory loss associated with conditions such as dementia. When we undertook our inspection there were 64 people living at the service.

We inspected The Elms Care Home on 20 and 21 January 2015. This was an unannounced inspection. During our inspection on 21 August 2014 we found there were a number of areas which had breached the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These covered a lack of actions plans and evidence to support tasks and treatment had been completed; staff had not received training in infection control and were unaware of where to go for advice; there was no maintenance plan in place to ensure the environment was kept safe; records were not stored safely; there was no method to calculate the dependency of people who used the service and how many staff were required to meet their needs; staff had not received sufficient supervision and training.

The provider had sent us action plans telling us how they were going to become compliant. We found the actions they said they would complete had been at this inspection. For full details see the main report.

There was not a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager was in the process of submitting their application to register with us.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection there were no people who had their freedom restricted.

We found that most people’s health care needs were assessed, and planned and delivered in a consistent way through the use of a care plan. The information and guidance provided to staff in the care plans was clear. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe. However we found that some people’s needs had not been thoroughly assessed and responded to in a timely manner.

People received the medicines they had been prescribed. Assessments on people’s ability to give themselves their own medicines was completed when necessary.

People were happy with the service they received. They said staff treated people with respect and were kind and compassionate towards them. People and their relatives found the staff and manager approachable and that they could speak with them at any time if they were concerned about anything.

Staff had the knowledge and skills that they needed to support people. They received training to enable them to understand people’s diverse needs. Staff told us they had formal supervision and support which had recently improved.

The provider had systems in place to regularly monitor, and when needed take action to continuously improve the quality and safety of the service.

19, 20, 21 August 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team on this occasion was made up of one inspector for two days and two inspectors for a further day. We considered our evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who use the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. We also took into consideration the action plan of local commissioning teams.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff could learn from events such as accidents and incidents. However when action plans were put in place no one monitored if suitable action had taken place.

Regular checks were not undertaken to ensure the environment was safe.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Only one application had needed to be submitted and proper policies and procedures were in place.

The service was not clean or hygienic in places. Equipment was not well maintained but some items had been serviced regularly. Therefore people were put at unnecessary risk.

Records were not kept in a safe and secure environment.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.

People said that they had been involved in writing them. The majority of care plans had not been regularly reviewed but a system was now in place to complete the reviews.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely.

People told us they could express their views at meetings with staff on a one to one basis and by completing surveys.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

People commented, "All staff are very good and very kind" and "I feel safe and am quite happy here."

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with in the service attended meetings throughout the year. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised there was no record of when they had been addressed. People told us they felt their opinions were valued.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded in the care plans we saw. Care and support had been provided in accordance with those particular people's wishes.

People received their prescribed medicines. Although some people told us this was sometimes delayed.

Is the service responsive?

People told us they could speak with staff each day and share their concerns. They told us staff acted quickly. Relatives told us they could speak with staff about their family member's needs, when that person could not make decisions for themselves.

Is the service well-led?

The registered manager at this location was on leave during our visit but a covering manager was giving support to staff. The covering manager was a registered manager from another location owned by Four Seasons.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way but staff were not good at recording other professionals' involvement.

Staff told us they could voice an opinion but some felt this was not always valued. Staff were supported by regular supervision sessions or training.

There was no update information on whether everyone's needs had been assessed. Therefore the staff levels could not be accurately determined.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were not identified as being addressed.. As a result the quality of the service was not being monitored.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home.

10 June 2013

During a routine inspection

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in such a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We looked at eight care plans for people who used the service. These were personalised and provided detailed and up to date guidance about how people's needs should be met.

We were present whilst lunch was taken. We saw appetising food was served. One person told us, 'I like the meals; they are always well presented and are pretty good.'

One member of care staff told us, 'We have good systems in place to monitor people's weight and their BMI. We also keep a close eye on how much people eat and drink.'

We looked around the home and observed a good overall standard of cleanliness.

Our conversations with staff showed infection control was given a high priority and there were clear procedures to follow.

We observed a member of staff administering medications in one unit of the home. We reviewed the medications administration records (MARs) and found them to be accurate.

We spoke with a unit manager who explained how the staff rotas were set up and how cover for holidays and sickness was arranged from within the team itself. One member of staff told us, 'We don't use agency staff; we are pretty good at covering each other.'

11 October 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited the home to follow up improvements since our last visit in May 2012. We spoke with eight people who told us they were satisfied with the care they had received.

We found improvements had been made to the management of odour problems in the home. New carpeting and floor coverings had been provided and checks on the standard of cleaning were taking place more frequently. We spoke with people who used the service about the cleanliness of the home. One person told us, "It is a clean place." Another person said, 'They keep the home looking very nice, it's always very clean and tidy, no smells.'

Staffing arrangements had improved since our last visit. Overall, staff said moral had improved and they were satisfied with the staffing levels in place. We observed routines and found staff responded promptly to requests for support. One person who lived in the home said, 'I'm very well looked after, the care staff are really nice.' Another person told us,' Staff are very good, always come when you ring for them, no problems at all.'

People who used the service told us they were well cared for. One person said, 'I'm quite satisfied with everything, I've no complaints" and "I'm getting the care that I need." Another person we spoke with said, "I'm happy with the support and care I get, I know they keep records about the help I need but I'm not very interested in all that.'

2 May 2012

During a routine inspection

Some people living at the home had complex needs and were not able to verbally communicate their views and experiences to us. Due to this we have used a formal way to observe people in this review to help us understand how their needs were supported. We call this the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI).

Throughout this observation we saw all staff treat people with respect and courtesy. The atmosphere in the Oakwood unit was relaxed and during our observation we saw positive and friendly interaction between staff and people who use the service. We observed that staff generally occupied people in meaningful activities.

We were able to speak with people during the visit who told us they were happy living at the home and that they were supported to make decisions about the care they received. One person told us "I like living here. It is very pleasant" and another person said' I am asked what I want to do each day and the staff support my decisions."

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff. One person told us 'Very grateful to them for everything, they are so nice' and another person said, 'Wonderful staff, very caring, couldn't wish for better.'

However comments we received about the staffing levels were mixed. People who were residing in Larchwood unit considered there were enough staff to meet their needs. Comments from people residing in and visiting Ashwood and Woodlands units were more negative. People we spoke with felt there had been staff shortages which meant that staff were too busy and they often had to wait for staff support. Comments from people we spoke with included: "If they're busy, it can take a long time to respond",' I visit every day at lunchtime to help feed my relative, it helps the girls, but I also know they will get fed on time' and 'Staffing levels seem to be worse in the mornings and during meal times, staff are often too busy to respond to bells.'