During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
Elmhurst Residential Home is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 30 older people. There were 28 people using the service at the time of our assessment.
Who the service is for
The service supports older people, including people living with dementia. Many people required support with personal care, eating and drinking, mobility and healthcare needs. Some people were living with advanced dementia and required support from a range of healthcare professionals.
The service aims to provide care in a homely environment. People had access to communal living and dining areas and were supported to maintain links with the local community through outings, events and activities. Staff supported people to access local parks, cafés, shopping facilities and community amenities according to their needs and wishes.
an understanding of supporting choice and control wherever possible.
Care plans contained information about people's preferences, routines, communication needs, cultural and religious requirements, risks and healthcare needs. Staff knowledge was consistent with the records we reviewed and reflected the care we observed during the assessment. We saw examples of care plans describing what was important to people, what might cause distress and how staff should support people to remain comfortable and reassured.
We identified some opportunities to strengthen record keeping and ensure information remains fully up to date. We also discussed how existing quality assurance arrangements could continue to support ongoing improvement.
Some people and relatives told us they would welcome additional opportunities for activities and engagement and more routine communication updates. However, they remained positive about the quality of care people received and spoke positively about staff, management and the culture of the service. Overall, the evidence gathered during the assessment indicated people received safe, caring and personalised support from staff who understood their needs, promoted their wellbeing and worked effectively with others to achieve positive outcomes for people.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 20 August 2026. This service was previously rated Good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of Good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a Good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
Overall, people received kind, personalised care from staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences and risks. People, relatives and healthcare professionals spoke positively about the service and the care provided.
People consistently described staff as kind, respectful and approachable. One person told us staff knew their likes and dislikes and treated them with respect. Another person told us they felt safe and would speak to staff if they had concerns. A third person described staff as friendly and told us staff always greeted people and checked on their wellbeing.
We observed positive interactions throughout the assessment. Staff supported people in a calm, patient and respectful manner and demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs. During observations, staff offered people choices about food and drink and supported people at their own pace. We observed staff supporting people to transfer safely whilst communicating throughout the process and ensuring people remained comfortable and reassured. Staff provided support with eating and drinking in a dignified and unhurried way and we saw people receiving assistance and reassurance when required.
People were supported by staff who understood their individual risks and changing needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of dementia care, falls prevention, epilepsy, skin integrity and deterioration in health. Staff described how information was shared through handovers and meetings to ensure people received consistent care.
The service worked effectively with external professionals including GPs, district nurses, mental health teams, pharmacists, speech and language therapists, dietitians, rapid response services and hospice services. Staff described how they monitored people's health, recognised signs of deterioration and sought professional support when required. A visiting district nurse told us staff recognised deterioration appropriately, sought advice promptly and followed professional recommendations.
People and relatives told us staff understood people's individual needs and how best to support them. One relative we spoke to valued seeing familiar staff who knew their family member well. Relatives told us they were informed of significant incidents and changes in people's health and wellbeing and felt able to contact management when required. Staff described how families were encouraged to be involved in care planning, reviews and decision-making. Staff also described supporting families with advance care planning discussions and working with healthcare professionals when people's needs changed or they approached the end of their lives.
Staff spoke positively about support from managers and described a stable team with regular communication through handovers and meetings.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. We reviewed the service's DoLS tracker and found the majority of people requiring authorisation had approved DoLS in place. We reviewed MCA assessments and DoLS documentation and found decisions were person-specific and reflected people's individual circumstances. Advocacy arrangements and Relevant Person's Representatives were involved where appropriate. Staff demonstrated an understanding of MCA and DoLS requirements and were able to explain how decisions were made in people's best interests.
People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Staff demonstrated an understanding of supporting choice and control wherever possible.
Care plans contained information about people's preferences, routines, communication needs, cultural and religious requirements, risks and healthcare needs. Staff knowledge was consistent with the records we reviewed and reflected the care we observed during the assessment. We saw examples of care plans describing what was important to people, what might cause distress and how staff should support people to remain comfortable and reassured.
We identified some opportunities to strengthen record keeping and ensure information remains fully up to date. We also discussed how existing quality assurance arrangements could continue to support ongoing improvement.
Some people and relatives told us they would welcome additional opportunities for activities and engagement and more routine communication updates. However, they remained positive about the quality of care people received and spoke positively about staff, management and the culture of the service. Overall, the evidence gathered during the assessment indicated people received safe, caring and personalised support from staff who understood their needs, promoted their wellbeing and worked effectively with others to achieve positive outcomes for people.