The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Elm Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

4a Marley Close, Ealing, London, UB6 9UG (020) 3202 0412

Provided and run by:
Viridian Housing

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

All Inspections

24 May 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 24 and 25 May 2017. The visit on 24 May was unannounced and we told the provider we would return on 25 May to finish the inspection. The last inspection of the service was in October 2015 when we rated the service as good for all five outcomes.

Elm Lodge is a care home providing nursing and personal care for up to 75 older people, some living with the experience of dementia. The service had a registered manager. 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 provider had systems in place to safeguard people using the service. Staff understood and followed the provider’s procedures if they had concerns about people.

There were enough staff to provide care and support and the provider’s recruitment checks were designed to ensure the staff were suitable to work at the service.

Staff assessed possible risks to people using the service and took action to mitigate risks they identified.

The provider had assessed people’s capacity to consent to the care and treatment they received and staff made sure people consented to their care as it was offered. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions the provider had acted in the person’s best interest and had consulted with those who were important to the person.

The staff received the training, supervision and support they needed to care for people safely and meet their needs.

People’s nutritional needs were met and staff worked with the GP and other healthcare professionals to make sure people’s healthcare needs were met. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

People who used the service and the relatives we spoke with all felt the staff were kind and genuinely cared about them or their family members.

Staff we spoke with could explain how they provided compassionate care and support for people. They spoke passionately and caringly about the people they supported and showed a genuine warmth and empathy for each person using the service.

The registered manager was able to give us examples where the care they provided in the service had made a difference to people’s lives.

Staff cared for and supported people in ways people wanted. People’s preferences and personal wishes were recorded in their care plans. People had access to a range of organised activities.

The provider had systems for managing and responding to complaints they received.

The service had a qualified and experienced manager. People living at the service, staff and visitors told us they found the manager approachable and said they felt the service was well managed.

The provider carried out a number of different audits and checks which enabled the manager and staff to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements. Records were well maintained, accurate and up to date.

7 and 8 October 2014

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 7 and 8 October 2014. At the last inspection on 10 November 2013, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements with respecting people’s privacy and dignity, and recording and respecting their individual choices. We received an action plan from the provider telling us they would meet the relevant legal requirements by 13 December 2013. At this inspection we found the actions had been completed.

Elm Lodge provides accommodation for people requiring nursing or personal care for up to 75 older people. The service has five units, each with 15 single en suite bedrooms, with dining, sitting and activity rooms. Two units accommodate people with personal care needs, one unit accommodates people with personal care and dementia care needs, one unit accommodates people with general nursing care needs and one unit accommodates people with nursing and dementia care needs. At the time of the inspection the service had no vacancies.

The service is required to have a registered manager in post, and the registered manager has been at the service for more than three years. 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.

People said they felt safe at the service, were happy with the care they received and said staff treated them with dignity and respect. We saw staff caring for people in a gentle and professional way, demonstrating a good understanding of people’s individual needs and how to meet them.

Overall medicines were being well managed and people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.

Staff understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and were clear about the process to follow to report concerns.

Staff on each unit were able to meet people’s individual care and support needs in an effective way, understanding and respecting the diverse needs of the people using the service.

Staff we spoke with and records we saw confirmed recruitment and training procedures were being followed.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). DoLS is where the provider must ensure that people’s freedom is not unduly restricted.

People using the service, relatives, staff, health and social care professionals spoke highly of the registered manager and her leadership skills. The manager kept up to date with new information and innovations that could benefit the service.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and people and relatives felt confident to express any concerns, so these could be addressed.

10 November 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this inspection after we received anonymous concerns about standards of care and staffing levels in the home. We arrived at the home at 6:15 am on a Sunday morning and stayed until 10 am. We spoke with 12 people using the service and 13 nurses and care staff working in the home. We also looked at the care plans for ten people living in the home and the staff rota for each unit.

Most people told us they were happy in the home. One person said 'it's much safer for me here, I couldn't live at home on my own anymore.' Another person said 'I'm happy here, it's not a bad place.'

When we asked people about their morning routines, one person said 'I'm worn out, it's very early.' Another person said 'I have to get up early as they are very busy.' A third person said 'I get up early anyway so it's not a problem.'

We saw that staff did not always respect people's privacy and bedroom doors were routinely left open while people were sleeping in bed.

The home is divided into five units, with 15 people living on each unit. Staffing rotas showed that four of the home's five units had two staff on at night. One unit only had one care assistant on overnight with responsibility for 15 people.

1 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with the manager, seven other members of staff, three relatives and 10 people who used the service. People were positive about the care provided and felt that they were included in any decision making about the care or treatment they received. We saw in the records that wherever possible people had given consent to their care plan. Where people were unable to give consent the home had ensured that their relatives or representatives were involved to make sure that informed consent was obtained.

People's needs were assessed and care plans developed to ensure staff knew how to support them. These had been updated to reflect people's changing needs. We observed staff treating people respectfully and responding to calls for support promptly.One person when talking about the staff said "they are terrific and always come when I need help". Relatives also spoke positively about the care provided at the home. One relative said "they are very dedicated to their jobs here". People were also supported to engage in a range of social activities and their religious and cultural needs were considered.

The home had appropriate systems in place to protect people from the risk of infection and staff adhered to these. There were enough staff on duty and staff had received training to equip them with the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs effectively. There was a complaints system in place and people said they felt able to raise any concerns as they were listened to.

29 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People said the staff treated them 'well' and listened to what they had to say. They told us staff were respectful and that they were offered choices, for example, menu and activity choices. People said their religious and cultural needs were considered and respected. They could attend church services and had culturally appropriate meals available on the menu. We asked people about their preferred waking and retiring times. They told us they chose when to get up and when to go to bed, and that these choices were respected by staff.

People said that staff provided 'good care' and they were happy living at the home. One person said the home 'could not be better' and another said they 'could not fault it in any way'. Another person said there was 'always someone to talk to' and that the food was 'excellent'. People said they enjoyed the food at the home and were able to choose what they wanted to eat. People said the staff responded if they were not well and arranged for them to see the GP. We spoke with a healthcare professional and a social care professional, both of whom expressed satisfaction with the care provision at the home. People said they enjoyed the activities arranged by the activities coordinator.

People said they were able to speak with the management and staff if they had any concerns. Visitors said they could raise any issues they had and that these would be addressed. People said they were asked their opinions and could attend meetings to express their views, which were listened to by staff.