Elm Bank Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment this was not rated.

At this assessment we rated the key question requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

People and their relatives described staff as kind, respectful, and caring. Comments included,“I love the place; everybody is kind and treats me well,”and“Carers do treat me with respect, no problems with any of them.”Relatives also praised the welcoming atmosphere and the staff’s familiarity with residents.

Staff were observed to know people well and focused on delivering person-centred care that supported wellbeing and quality of life. Many staff reported enjoying their work and spoke positively about teamwork and the home’s environment.

Some observations during the visit raised concerns. For instance, one person was seen and heard calling out for help and was ignored until they became visibly distressed. Another individual was being hoisted without any verbal interaction or explanation from staff. These incidents were discussed with the management team at the time of the visit.

Staff demonstrated a respectful and compassionate approach to supporting people during mealtimes. We observed people who required a pureed diet, had meals prepared with each component pureed separately. This helped preserve the appearance and integrity of the food, promoting dignity and a more positive dining experience. It also reflected staff’s awareness of the importance of maintaining people’s’ self-esteem and comfort in everyday routines.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People told us they were treated as individuals, with staff respecting their wishes and preferences. We observed staff to be mostly patient, kind, and respectful in their communication. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s routines and personal choices, for example, supporting individuals to attend church or recognising when someone preferred not to celebrate birthdays.

Activity schedules were clearly displayed in people’s rooms and throughout the home, and a variety of activities were offered seven days a week. Evening activities had been introduced in response to feedback from a residents’ meeting, showing some responsiveness to people’s views.

Some aspects of the environment did not fully support the needs of people living with dementia. All bathrooms contained mirrors, which may cause confusion or distress for some individuals who may not recognise themselves. Additionally, the décor on the floor supporting people living with dementia lacked features such as contrasting coloured doors or visual cues to aid orientation. These concerns were discussed with the management team, who advised that a refurbishment was planned.

While there were positive examples of personalised care and staff awareness of individual needs, further improvements were required to ensure the environment and daily experiences consistently reflected a person-centred approach for all individuals.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People received person-centred care tailored to their individual needs and desired outcomes. Staff supported individuals to make their own choices and be actively involved in decisions about their care. People spoke positively about the activities offered both within the home and in the community, including games like carpet bowls, gardening, music, and aqua painting. These activities were delivered in communal areas or in residents’ rooms, depending on preference or need. One person told us "When my relative first went in, we were concerned for them. However they had a singer in the second day they were there, and they loved it and got up to sing. Relative was a performer and singer, so they loved doing this, and the home gave them the opportunity to sing for everybody else. ' My relative does not join in with everything, but there are opportunities to do so if relative wants to. Last weekend they had a fete in the garden with a singer, and they got relative up to sing again. Relative is invited to all the activities that are put on.’

External entertainers, including concerts, were also part of the activity programme and could be adapted for room-based participation. People were encouraged to maintain relationships with family, friends, and community groups. This included attending external events like Dementia Sings Out (with linked broadcast to the home)and the weekly dementia café held within the home, which promoted independence and wellbeing. Relatives and friends could visit freely, with no restrictions in place.

However, we found the service did not offer or provide adaptive cutlery for people to use when required. We could not be assured that adaptations had been considered to enable people to remain as independent as possible before providing support with eating. This can limit the extent to which people are supported to retain control over their daily activities.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff generally understood and supported people’s individual care and communication needs. People’s abilities were assessed and regularly reviewed, and staff demonstrated awareness of how these could change over time. There was evidence of staff recognising signs of distress or discomfort in people who did not communicate verbally, and care plans reflected personalised approaches.

There were instances where immediate needs were not met in a timely manner. One person told us,“ We called the bell and waited about 20 minutes. When somebody finally came, they left to get another person and a hoist; that was another 10–15 minutes gone.” This delay in response could indicate that staffing coordination or prioritisation needed to improve.In contrast, another relative shared positive feedback:“ Relative is incontinent, and it is built into their care plan that staff will regularly check their incontinence pad. When I visit, relative is never wet or has soiled themselves. They always seem comfortable, dry and clean.” This demonstrates that when care is delivered as planned, people’s dignity and comfort are well maintained. Whilst staff showed good understanding of people’s needs, inconsistent response times indicate that further improvements are needed to ensure timely and consistent care delivery.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us that they enjoyed working at the care home and felt well supported by management. One staff member noted,“There is good teamwork; we all work well together.”The provider and managers recognised the diversity of the staff team and offered various support services, including confidential advice and bereavement support.

Staff achievements were celebrated through initiatives such as‘Employee of the Month’, voted for by staff, residents, and relatives, with winners receiving a bouquet of flowers. Long service was also acknowledged, including awards for 10 years of service.

Meeting notes showed that staff were encouraged to share feedback and raise concerns. While staff handbooks included guidance on annual leave, they did not contain information about break entitlements. This was discussed with the management team, who were able to assure us that all staff were aware of their break entitlements and confirmed that staff do receive their allocated breaks.