Elgar Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 78 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider routinely reviewed accidents and incidents which happened within the home, to ensure they were properly identified, managed, and followed up. Information about lessons learnt were shared effectively throughout the home.

The registered manager held daily staff meetings with leaders in the home to discuss any issues affecting people’s day to day care and to highlight potential learning needs related to delivering safe support. Documents reviewed for these meetings, showed evidence of shared lessons learnt from previous accidents or incidents. Actions were shared and tracked during the meetings with leaders in regards to accidents and incidents.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider had a robust policy, and systems in place to support admissions. These were planned with people and their families and shared with the team in readiness for a person to move into the home. There were strong working relationships with partner organisations to support consistent, safe care and smooth transitions. Referrals to healthcare professionals were made promptly prior to a person moving into the home where appropriate.

During the assessment, a visiting medical professional told us, “Communication is good with the home, the people are always busy with activities and have a variety of activities to choose from daily. Staff are very knowledgeable about people’s needs and people are happy in the home”.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were safeguarded from abuse, neglect, and discrimination. People told us they felt “safe” whilst living at the home. One relative told us, “It is a relief that my mum is now safe here, we now have peace of mind”.

Clear safeguarding policies were in place, and all staff had completed the required safeguarding training. They understood their responsibilities and felt confident in recognising and reporting any concerns with the provider. Staff knew exactly who to report issues to, including the registered manager, the provider’s ‘speak up’ champion, senior leaders and external agencies.

The provider always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

There was evidence that people play an active role in creating a robust and innovative safeguarding approach that promotes positive risk‑taking and increases their control over their lives. People were actively involved in writing their care plans, understanding and managing their own risks, helping ensure care was delivered in a way which was safe, empowering, and meaningful. Care plans were clear, robust and detailed to enable staff to support people consistently.

For example, before moving to Elgar Court, two people had not left their own home for more than six months due to fear of not being able to manage the environment independently. Staff worked closely with them to create a personalised plan which would help them safely reconnect with the community and rebuild their independent living skills. As a result, both individuals are now regularly accessing the community and have regained a greater sense of independence. One person said, “It’s the little things in life that make the greatest impact, and I cannot thank everyone at Elgar Court enough for giving me my life back”.

Staff had high level of knowledge about people, and their approach enabled people to be as independent as possible. For example, people were assessed to manage their own medication in relation to diabetes and were involved in the creation of their own mobility care plans when accessing the community.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment was safe to meet people’s needs and promoted people’s personal choices and preferences. The registered manager was passionate about ensuring the environment met people’s needs.

Equipment was available to support people’s mobility needs such as wheelchairs, walking aids and shower or bathing equipment.

The provider had a dedicated maintenance team onsite to support and maintain the environment. The registered manager audited the environment regularly to support with this, and audits included fire safety, water checks and call bells.

People had personal emergency evacuation plans in place and regular fire drills were conducted.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People were actively involved, wherever possible, in choosing the staff who support them, including having a say in recruitment and selection. We saw evidence of recent interviews that took place where residents were invited into the interview and were given the opportunity to ask any questions they wanted. They were also part of the decision-making process once the interview had concluded and asked for their thoughts on the candidate.

The service is recognised for its commitment to staff safety and is considered a highly desirable workplace by staff and partner organisations. For example, there was a recent piece of work where the home introduced the “menopause café”. This included close work with the local GP and was not only available to staff and the people onsite, but the local community was invited to gain access to this information. It offered people a safe and supportive space to talk through their experiences and the changes happening in their lives.

The provider ensured on each floor of the home there was a designated ‘community leader’ who was responsible for overseeing the day‑to‑day running of their floor, ensuring residents received safe, consistent and effective support.

Leaders were able to evidence thorough supervisions that were completed with staff, there was a key emphasis on reflective practice, support and planning for the future. At the core of the supervisions were discussions on the provider’s values, and how this links into day-to-day support for people.

The service placed a strong importance on staff development, with training records showing excellent results and a 99% completion rate across all areas. This high level of training helped ensure staff delivered safe, supportive care that reflected the latest legislative requirements. One staff member told us, “Management is very good, they make sure people are looked after, I would not like to move anywhere else, management are so good they make sure we are ok as well as the residents”.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and all staff had access to the providers policies and procedures in relation to infection prevention and control.

There were regular cleaning checks completed daily by a dedicated housekeeping team. This was then audited by the registered manager.

The environment was very clean and staff took a real pride in offering a clean and tidy environment.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The service takes a creative approach to helping people manage their prescribed and over‑the‑counter medicines, including supporting them to take on as much responsibility as they can. Staff and the provider review this regularly in partnership with each person and their GP. People were encouraged to develop and update their own medication plans, and some were assessed as able to administer their medicines independently.

Review’s of people’s medication care plans were thorough and included the person and where possible, external medical professionals, for example GPs. Any changes were shared with the team effectively through handovers and daily meetings. The providers electronic care planning system was updated so staff had access to immediate updates.

Staff had received appropriate training to carry out medicines administration. This included competency checks when administering medicines and knowledge checks to ensure staff understood the requirements for safely administering medicines.

People’s medication administration records (MARs) were reviewed, and people were receiving their medicines in line with prescribing guidance.

All medicine administration errors, near misses, and missed signatures were documented and investigated by the management team. Learning from these incidents was shared during handovers, daily meetings and supervisions.