Elm House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider had relevant policies to make sure person-centred care was seen as a priority by all levels of staff. The registered manager conducted thorough assessments before people were admitted to the service, and captured a holistic view of people’s needs, preferences and routines. Important information was cascaded to staff to help staff have in depth knowledge about people’s care and treatment choices. Staff said they had enough time to get to know people well and were committed to asking people about what was important to them.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff understood the needs of people living at Elm House Care Home. Many staff had worked at the home for some time, and the registered manager organised rotas so that people were supported by familiar and consistent staff. Where agency staff were used, it was the same members of staff that covered shifts. The service could be flexible to support peoples’ choices, and people had their own routines. The registered manager accommodated admissions to the service at different times of the day to support individual circumstances and wider pressures on the healthcare system.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was an appropriate communication policy that staff could easily access. Although we could not see specific communication plans in people’s records due to the limitations of the electronic system, people’s needs such as hearing and sight loss were recorded and accounted for in care plans.

The provider had different ways to support communication with people, such as visual aids and dedicated staff support. The provider could tailor written information into different formats when required.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider established different ways to involve people and their relatives, including relative’s meetings where issues and suggestions could be raised and discussed. The provider sent people and relatives questionnaires so that feedback could be given and acted upon. Relatives were invited to people’s care reviews on a regular basis. There was a suggestion box in the reception area. The provider recently established a closed and private Facebook group so that photographs and information about activities within the home could be shared with family members, and relatives could post feedback if they chose to.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People agreed that the care was accessible, and that it met their needs. The building met requirements for being accessible and equipment was appropriate for health and mobility issues. The provider could make adjustments in care provision to meet people’s requirements, for example around communication and mobility. The registered manager had good knowledge about services available to people in the local area which could help prevent deterioration in health.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

There were appropriate policies, and staff had undertaken relevant training. People and staff did not have any concerns about discrimination. The registered manager understood potential barriers people could face in relation to their health outcomes and was committed to reducing this, for example, access to falls prevention services.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s end of life care needs were accounted for and reviewed regularly within their care plans. They included relevant people such as loved ones. Records regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation were completed appropriately and were easily accessible. Staff completed end of life training and further specific training was being planned. Nobody at the home was at the end of their life during the assessment, although medicines were in place if required.