You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 January 2017

Fox Elms Care provides personal care to older and younger people with a learning disability, sensory or physical disability or mental health needs living in their own homes in Gloucestershire. Some people lived in private homes on their own or with family and other people lived in shared housing. Fox Elms Care was providing personal care to 25 people at the time of our inspection.

At the last inspection on 3 February 2016, the service was rated Good.

This focussed unannounced inspection on 16 December 2016 was prompted in part by a notification of an incident following which a person using the service died. This incident is subject to a coroner investigation and as a result this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident.

However, the information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about the management of the risk of choking. This inspection examined those risks and other risks people might potentially face.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People’s care and support considered risks to their safety and systems had been put in place to manage these. Accident and incident records monitored events and action had been taken to respond to these involving the input and advice of health care professionals. People were supported by staff who understood how to respond in an emergency to any accidents, incidents or near misses.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas



Updated 11 January 2017

The service remains Good. People’s risks were being managed and systems were in place to reduce risks. Plans were in place to respond to emergencies and to share risks about people’s care and support with health care professionals.



Updated 1 March 2016

The service was effective. People were supported by staff who had the opportunity to develop their skills and knowledge and to develop professionally. Staff were supported through individual and team meetings to reflect on their performance and their training needs.

People’s capacity to consent to their care and support was sought in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People unable to consent to aspects of their care or support, had decisions made in their best interests.

People were supported to stay well through maintaining a balanced diet and access to health care professionals.



Updated 1 March 2016

The service was caring. People were supported with kindness, care and patience. They were reassured when upset and shared lighter moments with staff when happy.

People had the opportunity to make choices about their daily lives and to be involved in reviews of their care and support.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their human rights were upheld.



Updated 1 March 2016

The service was responsive. People received individualised care which reflected their wishes, aspirations and preferences. People’s care was delivered when and where they needed it.

People, relatives and staff knew they could raise concerns and action would be taken to address any issues they raised.



Updated 1 March 2016

The service was well-led. People’s views and those of their relatives and staff were sought and used to improve the quality of the service provided.

The registered manager recognised the challenges for the service and worked with external agencies to develop and improve the service provided.

Quality assurance systems were effective and monitored people’s experiences of their care and support.