You are here

Archived: Elm Park Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 4 May 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 10 and 12 March 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 10 and 12 March 2015 and was unannounced on the first day. The care home was registered with the CQC in September 2014 so this was the first inspection of the service.

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.

Throughout our inspection we saw staff supporting people in a caring, responsive and friendly manner. They encouraged people to be as independent as possible while taking into consideration any risks associated with their care. The majority of the people we spoke with told us they were very happy with how care and support was provided. They complimented the staff and spoke positively about the way the home was managed, as well as the general facilities available.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. We saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding people and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made. Assessments identified risks to people and management plans to reduce the risks were in place to ensure people’s safety.

Medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely. We saw people received their medications in a timely way from staff who had been trained to carry out this role.

Overall we saw there was enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs but some people felt additional staff would be beneficial at key times, such as mealtimes and in the evenings on the first floor.

There was a recruitment system in place that helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Staff had received a structured induction into how the home operated, and their job role, at the beginning of their employment. They had access to a varied training programme that met the needs of the people using the service.

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 very happy with the meals provided and confirmed they were involved in choosing what they wanted to eat. On the whole mealtimes were a relaxed and enjoyable experience for people who used the service.

People told us their needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and we saw they or their relatives had been involved in planning their care. The six care files we checked reflected people’s main needs, but we found they did not always outline people’s preferences in detail. We also found care plans had not been meaningfully evaluated on a regular basis to assess if the planned care was working, or if changes needed to be made.

People had access to a varied activities programme which provided regular in-house activities and stimulation, as well as in the community. People told us they enjoyed the activities they took part in, but could choose not to participate if they preferred.

The majority of people we spoke with said they had no complaints, but would feel comfortable speaking to staff if they had any concerns. We saw the complaints policy was easily available to people using or visiting the service. People told us when concerns had been raised these had been investigated and resolved promptly.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. However, due to the short time the home had been open surveys had not taken place, but we saw meetings and informal discussions had been used to gain people’s views.