Saint Elkas Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to outstanding. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently better than expected compared to similar services. People’s feedback described it as exceptional and distinctive.

This service scored 92 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Assessments of people’s needs had been carried out prior to them moving into the service. These assessments involved the person and, where appropriate, their relatives and healthcare professionals, to ensure the service was able to meet their needs and preferences. The registered manager told us how they ensured transitions into the service were gradual and well‑planned, allowing people time to become familiar with the environment and staff. This helped reduce anxiety and supported a smooth and positive experience.

Care plans and risk assessments clearly identified people’s needs and any associated risks. They outlined the actions staff should take to minimise the risk of avoidable harm. Staff told us information was reviewed regularly and updated when people’s needs changed. Care plans also contained detailed information about people’s choices and preferences. We found clear guidance for staff on how to support people with their daily routines, and daily care records showed staff followed this information consistently.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. People received highly effective, evidence-based care and treatment that was planned and delivered in full partnership with them. Staff ensured that what mattered most to each person shaped their goals, interventions, and day to day support. Staff demonstrated an exceptional level of expertise, with a strong understanding of the approaches required to meet the complex and varied needs of the people they supported. This knowledge was applied reliably in practice, resulting in safe, personalised, and meaningful care. Stakeholders told us that staff worked collaboratively and proactively to prevent avoidable hospital admissions. They described how the staff team had meticulously planned and delivered support within the community for a person, recognising that a hospital admission would have been potentially detrimental to them. Staff ensured the person had timely access to advocacy, and they established clear reporting, monitoring, and escalation systems to maintain the person’s safety. Stakeholders reported that this approach was highly successful, enabling the person to remain in the least restrictive environment and achieve positive outcomes without the disruption of hospital care. Staff also told us how the person experienced a significant improvement in their wellbeing by remaining in the service.

We also saw strong evidence of the provider’s commitment to coordinated and person-centred healthcare. One person undergoing treatment for a physical health condition was supported through a well co-ordinated, multi‑disciplinary approach. Staff worked closely with external health professionals to plan care, advocate for the person’s rights, and ensure they had the information and support needed to make safe, informed decisions about their treatment. This demonstrated a clear focus on promoting autonomy, improving health outcomes, and reducing health inequalities. Overall, the provider delivered care that was consistently effective, clinically robust, and grounded in best practice, ensuring people received the right treatment at the right time to achieve the best possible outcomes.

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once. Staff worked exceptionally well in partnership with health and mental health professionals, ensuring people benefited from coordinated, proactive and clinically informed support. This included jointly planning positive risk‑taking approaches that enabled people to safely try new experiences, develop confidence and achieve meaningful personal outcomes. External professionals told us that staff consistently demonstrated a strong understanding of how to balance people’s safety with autonomy.

The service worked closely with healthcare partners to ensure reasonable adjustments were consistently identified and implemented, enabling people to access healthcare without unnecessary distress. For example, where people experienced significant anxiety about attending GP surgeries, staff collaborated with health professionals to arrange for all appointments to take place in the service. This ensured people received timely healthcare in a way that respected their needs and reduced barriers to treatment. Stakeholders provided consistently positive and highly complementary feedback about the quality of care delivered and the standard of communication from staff. They described the team as responsive, knowledgeable and committed to achieving the best outcomes for people. One professional told us, “I have known the staff and place for the last 8 years. The care and support residents receive has always been extremely good. We have an excellent relationship. Staff are fully involved with our team. Any problems that arise are quickly resolved due to the diligence of the staff at Saint Elka’s. They absolutely have the residents’ best interests at heart.” Another stakeholder commented, “I have found that Saint Elka’s staff are very good communicators, particularly their manager. They share information appropriately and ensure we are informed of any changes or emerging risks that may require intervention.” A further professional added, “The staff members at Saint Elka’s are always friendly and welcoming and seem to have in‑depth knowledge of the residents in their care.”

The provider always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The provider consistently demonstrated an outstanding commitment to supporting people to manage their health and wellbeing, enabling them to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff worked proactively with individuals to promote healthier lifestyles and, where possible, reduce the likelihood of future care and support needs.

There was a strong and embedded culture of health promotion across the service. Staff actively encouraged and empowered people to understand and make informed choices about their diet, lifestyle, physical activity, and personal and oral hygiene. Information was shared in meaningful, accessible ways, ensuring people were fully engaged and able to take ownership of maintaining and improving their own health.

Each person benefited from a comprehensive and highly detailed health action plan. These plans clearly outlined the support required to monitor, review and enhance their overall wellbeing. They covered a wide range of important areas, including sexual health, routine health screenings and lifestyle choices, ensuring a holistic approach and consistent, proactive support.

We saw numerous examples of person-centred practice, where staff thoughtfully tailored activities to reflect individual interests and preferences. People were supported to engage in meaningful pursuits such as gardening, accessing the local community, and attending clubs and events. For example, one person with a complex history of mental health needs was supported by staff who worked collaboratively with them and external professionals to develop a highly personalised support plan focused on recovery, independence, and community inclusion. This approach resulted in significant improvements in the person’s independence, confidence, and overall wellbeing. They are now able to go out independently on a daily basis, have re-engaged with essential healthcare services after several years, and have developed the confidence to travel independently. They have also successfully rebuilt meaningful family connections. These opportunities not only promoted people’s physical health but also strengthened social connections, enhanced emotional wellbeing, and encouraged positive daily routines and healthier lifestyle choices. The provider’s approach was exceptionally well-coordinated, empowering and preventative, ensuring people experienced sustained improvements in their health, wellbeing and quality of life.

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The provider had effective and well established systems in place to monitor people’s progress and ensure their care and support continued to meet their needs. Everyone using the service had an allocated key worker who regularly met with them to review how they were feeling, reflect on recent progress and agree achievable aims and goals. These meetings were clearly recorded and demonstrated how staff supported people to build confidence, develop new skills and work towards outcomes that were meaningful to them. This approach ensured people remained actively involved in shaping their support and that staff could respond promptly to any changes in need or emerging risks.

We found people were consistently supported to achieve positive outcomes. We saw evidence of many success stories where staff had supported people to make meaningful progress in their lives, overcome personal challenges and develop greater independence. Staff worked patiently and creatively with individuals to help them build confidence, learn new skills and pursue goals that were important to them, resulting in clear improvements in people’s wellbeing and quality of life. Stakeholders confirmed this, “My experience of Saint Elka’s has consistently been positive, in relation to [person]. Saint Elka’s work in a person-centred way and take active steps to provide a good quality of life.” The staff team evidenced many examples of people achieving positive outcomes.

We saw people had been supported to access further education, take part in creative writing, and to rebuild their confidence in areas such as cooking and gardening. These achievements reflected the staff’s commitment to enabling people to build skills, pursue their interests and make meaningful progress in their personal development.

The provider always carefully explained to people what their rights around consent were, made sure they fully understood them and always fully respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff consistently respected people’s rights in relation to consent and ensured that decisions about care were made in ways people could understand. Staff demonstrated a strong awareness of the need to obtain consent before delivering care or support, ensuring information was provided in a meaningful and accessible way, with appropriate support in place to help people make informed decisions.

When people required additional communication support, staff used consistent, person-centred cues, presented choices in accessible formats, and allowed sufficient time for information to be processed. This approach helped ensure people remained in control of their care. Staff also recognised when people needed reassurance, space, or alternative communication methods to feel comfortable providing consent. Where people had been assessed as lacking capacity to make specific decisions, appropriate steps were taken to ensure decisions were made in their best interest, involving relevant professionals and those important to them, such as health and mental health practitioners, family members, friends, and advocates. People were supported to access independent advocacy, and advocates were appropriately involved in people’s care.

During our inspection, we observed staff routinely checking with people before providing support, clearly explaining their actions, and waiting for clear indications of consent before proceeding.