You are here

Archived: Elm Park Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 June 2017

The unannounced inspection took place on 4 May 2017. The home was previously inspected in March 2015 when the service was rated ‘Good’. This means the service met all relevant fundamental standards.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Elm Park Care Home’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Elm Park is a purpose built care home on the outskirts of Doncaster. The home provides accommodation for up to 75 people on three floors. The care provided is for people who mainly have needs associated with those of older people; this includes a dedicated unit on the first floor for people living with dementia. Nursing care is also provided.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People we spoke with said they were very happy with the way staff delivered care, the social activities available and the general facilities at the home. Throughout our inspection we saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service, as well as with visitors.

People were treated with dignity, respect, kindness and understanding. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the people they cared for, their preferences and abilities.

All the people we spoke with, including staff, told us the home was a safe place to live and work. Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise signs of potential abuse and the reporting procedures. Assessments identified potential risks to people and actions to minimise these risks had been incorporated into the care plans we sampled.

Recruitment processes were thorough, so helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. At the time of the inspection there was sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs. However, a few relatives felt additional staff would be beneficial.

People received their medications safely from staff who had completed medication training.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and we found they, or their relatives, had been involved in planning their care. Overall the care files we checked reflected people’s needs and preferences and they had been regularly reviewed and updated.

Staff had access to a varied training programme which helped them meet the needs of people using the service and develop their skill and knowledge. Regular support sessions had been provided to staff, but staff appraisals were not consistent with the provider’s policy. However, staff said they felt well supported and the registered manager was taking action to address any overdue appraisals.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. The people we spoke with said they were happy with the meals provided and we saw they were involved in choosing what they wanted to eat. On the day we visited the dining rooms were relaxed and people who used the service were given time to eat their meal leisurely.

There was a system in place to tell people how to raise concerns and how these would be managed. Any concerns raised had been addressed in a timely manner, and action taken to make improvement, if it was found changes were needed.

Systems were in place to assess if the home was operating correctly and people were satisfied with the service provided. This included meetings, surveys and regular audits. Where necessary action plans had been put in place to address any areas

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 June 2017

The service remains Good

Effective

Good

Updated 2 June 2017

The service remains Good

Caring

Good

Updated 2 June 2017

The service remains Good

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 June 2017

The service was responsive.

Each person had a care plan which they had been involved in developing. Improvements had been made since the last inspection to ensure care plans were reviewed and updated in a timely manner.

People had access to varied and stimulating activities, as well as outings into the community, which they said they enjoyed.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed. People told us they would feel comfortable raising any concerns with staff

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 June 2017

The service remains Good