Saint Elkas Care Home

We inspected this home on 7 November 2017. At our last inspection we found the provider was meeting the regulations and we rated the home as ‘Good’. Saint Elkas is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care home is registered to accommodate nine people in one adapted building, on the day of our inspection nine people were using the service. It is a large house set in extensive gardens, with a small self-contained annex at the rear of the property. The home’s ground floor accommodation comprises of a lounge, dining and games room, kitchen, small office and medicine room. The upstairs accommodation contains the bedrooms and bathroom facilities. The home provides support to people with mental health needs.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us they enjoyed living at the home. They felt safe and protected from harm by staff who had the skills and training to support them. There was sufficient staff and there was a flexible arrangement to support appointment or events. Staff had received training in medicine management and provided safe administration. People were supported to learn to administer their own medicine as part of developing their independence skills.

Risk assessments had been completed and people supported with their risks. Guides were provided and measures taken to reduce the risks. Staff had received training for their role. There was a choice of meals which were decided on a weekly basis at a community meeting in the home. People’s diets and preferences had been considered. Referrals had been made to health care professionals to support peoples ongoing health needs or their wellbeing. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People felt they had developed positive relationships with staff who provided a kind and caring environment. They were supported to be independent and their choices were respected. People had been involved in the development of their care and any reviews. Their cultural needs had been considered and wishes in relation to religion. Activities, interests and hobbies were available and encouraged to support people to be stimulated and to support their health recovery. People’s care was inclusive and considered people’s last wishes.

Staff were supported by the manager and the home had good links with the provider. The registered manager completed a range of audits which reflected the needs of the home and people receiving the care. Community development had been established and new initiatives taken on board to support the safety of people using the service.

We saw that the previous rating was displayed in the reception of the home as required. The manager understood their responsibility of registration with us and notified us of important events that occurred at the service; this meant we could check appropriate action had been taken.

People told us they could make drinks or snacks at any time they chose to. Most people told us they enjoyed the meals provided. People told us the staff were “very good”, “everything is fine”, and “Staff are around when you need them”.

There were suitable arrangements in place to ensure that people were consulted and involved in making decisions about their care.

We found that care was planned and delivered to meet people's needs. We saw people's care needs were documented well and care plans were updated if there were any changes. This ensured staff had access sufficient information about to care for people.

People were protected from the risk of malnutrition and dehydration. People were offered a choice of menu and they were asked about their dietary preferences. There were suitable systems in place to monitor people’s weights and nutritional intake. Where concerns about people’s weights were identified referrals had been made to healthcare professionals.

Medicines were suitably stored and handled. There were arrangements in place to support people to self-medicate where this was considered appropriate.

There were systems in place to ensure staff were supported and received training.

There were suitable systems in place to handle complaints. People told us they would speak to staff if they had any concerns but had not felt the need to. People were offered opportunities to discuss any worries at regular residents meetings.

People appeared at ease with the staff and there were lots of chat and positive interactions observed. People were able to make their own drinks and meals when they wished at breakfast and lunch. At the main meal of the day at teatime people and staff ate together.

People and told us they were involved in making decisions about their care.

The care plans were signed by people to show their involvement and agreement.

Staff were suitably trained and had access to information about medicines. We spoke with three people who told us that staff always gave them medicines at regular times. Where appropriate there were systems in place to support people to self medicate. We observed some poor practice during our visit and found that staff were not always following safe administration practices.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place. This ensured that staff were suited to work with vulnerable adults.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and involve staff and people in the running of the home.