Saint Elkas 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 registered manager and provider demonstrated a positive safety culture by responding to incidents in a way that balanced risk management with people’s independence. Their approach focused on understanding the root causes of incidents and putting proportionate, person‑centred control measures in place. These measures supported people to continue engaging in activities that were important to them, while ensuring any identified risks were safely managed. Learning from events had been cascaded through the staff team and staff confirmed communication was good and they were promptly informed of any changes in people’s care. One staff member told us, “We are a small team, information is never missed.”

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. People’s needs were thoroughly assessed before they began using the service to ensure their care and support could be safely and appropriately met. Key information was gathered from the person, their relatives, and any external professionals involved in their care. This collaborative approach supported a well‑planned and positive transition into the service. Transitions were tailored to each person, taking account of their preferences, routines, and any specific support requirements. We also found staff continued to review and update information to ensure the service held accurate, current details about people’s needs, risks, and preferences. This ongoing assessment process helped maintain consistent, person‑centred support and ensured people received care that reflected their changing circumstances.

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 protected from abuse and avoidable harm. People and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe. One person said, “I do feel safe, I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else.” Another person told us, “I am safe, I have been very settled since living here.” Staff had completed safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding of how to recognise and report any concerns. We found effective systems in place to ensure accidents and incidents were investigated and analysed, to identify learning and take action to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Safeguarding information was clearly displayed throughout the service, providing people, staff and visitors with guidance on how to raise a concern and who to contact if they needed support.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People were safely supported to live their day to day lives in line with their choices and preferences. Care plans clearly outlined people’s aspirations and goals, and these were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained relevant and achievable. People were also supported by named keyworkers who met with them regularly to review their goals, celebrate progress and identify any new areas they wished to work on. This helped ensure people remained actively involved in shaping their support and moving towards greater independence.

We saw evidence of staff working collaboratively with people to develop and maximise their independence at a pace that felt comfortable and empowering for them. Staff demonstrated a very good understanding of each person’s needs and how to provide positive, proactive support in relation to known risks. Where staff had sought advice from external professionals, this guidance was incorporated into people’s care plans. External professionals also gave us positive feedback about how staff worked with people to support their needs and manage risks effectively. One professional told us, “I feel confident in their ability to safety plan and consider the potential risks.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. We found the service to be clean and well maintained. Communal areas were homely and inviting, People’s bedrooms were personalised and reflected their interests. Regular health and safety checks were carried out across the environment. These audits enabled the provider to identify any emerging issues early and take prompt action to address them, ensuring the building remained safe for people, staff and visitors. Relatives also spoke positively about the condition of the service. One relative told us, “The service is always clean and welcoming, and seems well maintained.”

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, their relatives and staff told us there were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. We found staff were proactive in anticipating people’s needs, and staffing levels were planned around these to ensure people received timely and consistent support.

Staff were visible throughout the service and responded promptly when people required assistance. Staff had been recruited safely, and safer recruitment processes had been followed to ensure people were suitable for their roles. Staff spoke positively about the training they had received and told us how the provider and registered manager had encouraged and supported them to develop their skills and undertake further learning. Staff received regular checks of their competency to ensure they carried out their roles safely and in line with best practice.

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. The provider built infection prevention and control measures into daily routines in a way that kept the service feeling homely and comfortable. Cleaning products and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were stored discreetly yet remained accessible to staff when needed. Comprehensive cleaning schedules were in place and were evident during our observations of the home. Infection, prevention and control audits were carried out regularly, and where any shortfalls were identified, appropriate actions were taken to address them.

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. Staff had not consistently recorded the outcome when PRN (as‑required) medicines were administered, including whether the medicine had been effective. The registered manager took immediate action to address this. Medicines were administered by trained staff who received regular checks and direct observation of their practice. Stock levels corresponded with the records in place and audits of medicine administration records were conducted regularly.