- Care home
Elmhurst Residential Home
Assessment report published 23 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with people living at the service, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. We also gathered evidence through observations throughout the day, including a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) observation. This helped us understand the experiences of people who were unable to fully communicate their views verbally.
People spoke positively about living at the service and consistently described staff as kind, respectful and approachable. One person told us the service was "nice", said staff knew their likes and dislikes and treated them with respect. Another person told us they felt safe living at the service and would speak to staff if they had any concerns. A third person said, “Everybody is friendly. Staff are kind and always say hello and ask how you are.”
Our observations reflected the positive feedback people shared. We saw staff supporting people in a calm, patient and respectful manner. Staff used people's preferred names, took time to explain what they were doing and adapted their approach according to individual needs. We observed staff offering people choices about food, drinks and support throughout the day and supporting people at their own pace. Staff provided reassurance and encouragement as well as practical support, helping people remain comfortable and engaged.
During observations, we saw staff support people with eating and drinking in a dignified and unhurried way. Staff offered refreshments, biscuits and cake and checked people's preferences before providing support. We observed staff supporting a person to transfer safely, communicating throughout and providing reassurance. People appeared comfortable receiving support and staff responded appropriately when people required assistance.
The SOFI observation identified positive interactions between people and staff. We observed staff spending time with people, offering reassurance, engaging in conversations and supporting people according to their individual needs. People appeared comfortable in staff presence and staff interactions were consistently positive during the period observed.
Staff demonstrated a detailed understanding of people's individual needs, preferences and life histories. For example, staff were able to describe how they supported a person living with advanced dementia whose physical wellbeing, comfort and mood fluctuated. Staff explained how support was adapted from day to day according to the person's presentation and wellbeing. Staff also demonstrated a good understanding of how people communicated distress, discomfort or unmet needs when they could not express these verbally.
People's cultural, religious and communication needs were recognised and respected. Care records included information about people's cultural preferences, religious wishes, communication needs and what was important to them. Relatives told us staff respected people's individual backgrounds and tailored support accordingly. One relative told us staff supported their family member's religious needs and respected their cultural preferences. Another relative told us staff used familiar language and approaches which helped their family member feel comfortable and understood.
People were supported to make choices and retain control over their daily lives wherever possible. Staff offered choices about meals, drinks, activities and daily routines and care plans contained information about people's preferences and how they wished to receive support. Families told us they were able to visit and remain involved in decisions about their relative's care. Staff described how they involved people and their families in care planning and reviews and how decisions were made in accordance with people's wishes and best interests where appropriate.
Relatives spoke positively about the care provided and the relationships staff developed with people. One relative described staff as "more like a family" and valued seeing familiar staff who knew their family member well. Another relative told us staff understood their family member's needs and how best to support them. One relative explained their family member had initially found moving into the service difficult but had become “more settled and relaxed” over time due to the support, patience and understanding shown by staff. This gave the relative confidence that their family member was receiving care from staff who knew them well.
People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. Families were encouraged to visit and remain involved in people's lives. Relatives told us staff informed them when incidents occurred or when people's health needs changed and felt able to contact staff or managers if they required information or support. Some relatives told us they would welcome more routine updates about their family member's wellbeing, although they remained positive about communication overall.
People were offered opportunities to take part in activities and maintain links with their local community. Staff described supporting people to visit local parks, cafés, shopping centres and other community facilities according to their interests and abilities. The service organised seasonal events, exercise sessions and social activities. During our visit we observed a jigsaw activity, music and ball exercises taking place.
One person and a relative felt there could be additional opportunities for activities and engagement. One person told us they would enjoy activities such as bingo or card games. Despite this feedback, people and relatives remained positive about the care and support provided and told us they would recommend the service to others.
Overall, people described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Our observations showed staff promoted people's dignity, comfort, choice and wellbeing and supported people in ways that reflected their individual needs, preferences and life experiences.