The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has again rated Elmcroft Care Home inadequate and kept it in special measures, following an inspection in November and December 2024.
Elmcroft Care Home is run by Elmcroft Care Home Limited, but marketed as part of Abbey Healthcare, which operates 13 care homes across England. Elmcroft Care Home provides personal and nursing care for up to 54 younger and older adults, including people living with dementia or physical disabilities. There were 25 people living in the home at the time of inspection.
This inspection was carried out to follow up concerns CQC found at the home’s last inspection, including significant risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. Following that inspection, the local authority stopped placing new residents funded by them in the home.
CQC has again rated the home inadequate overall, as well as for effective, responsive, and well-led. However, CQC has raised the home’s ratings for safe and caring from inadequate to requires improvement.
CQC has kept the home in special measures, meaning it will be kept under review and closely monitored to ensure people are receiving safe care.
CQC has also imposed conditions on the home to focus its attention on the areas where significant and immediate improvements are needed. These conditions prevent the home from admitting new residents without prior agreement from CQC and require the home to send monthly reports to CQC detailing progress.
Hazel Roberts, CQC deputy director of operations in the East of England, said:
“When we inspected Elmcroft Care Home we were concerned to find people’s care still wasn’t always personalised to their needs and risks, and some people’s quality of life was very poor. A new management team had made some improvements to people’s safety, but more work and time was needed to embed these.
“While we saw staff were kind, they still supported people in a task-focused way and didn’t always seek to proactively improve people’s quality of life or wellbeing in a meaningful way. While staff responded to people’s immediate care needs, they didn’t always respond quickly to minimise people’s discomfort or distress, and people were often left unoccupied for long periods of time, increasing their risk of social isolation.
“The home also didn’t consider people’s abilities or preferences when organising activities. Inspectors found staff were recording all possible leisure activities in people’s care records, even if that person hadn’t participated. One person told us they hated the home and nothing happens there, while another person asked our inspectors if they’d come back, as staff rarely talk to them. Following this inspection managers told us they have taken additional steps to increase the variety of leisure activities for people.
“Managers had invested in new training for staff but this wasn’t always evident in people’s care. For example, staff had received safeguarding training but still couldn’t always explain how to recognise potential abuse, neglect, or restrictive practice. Staff also didn’t always know how to support people trying to communicate their needs, and still didn’t always understand how to respect the rights of people with limited mental capacity.
“People and their relatives said they felt safe and gave consistently positive feedback about the new management team, who were highly visible and leading by example in their efforts to improve the service. However, they were new in post and hadn't had time to embed many changes.
“We also found a concerning disconnect between them and the corporate leadership, who had not fully recognised the seriousness of the concerns we raised to them at the last inspection.
“We’ve imposed conditions on the home’s registration to protect people and focus leaders’ attention on making immediate improvements. We’ll continue to monitor the home to ensure people are being kept safe while this happens.”
Inspectors also found:
- We found some people’s care records were generic, lacked detail, and weren’t always discussed with them to ensure their needs, risks, and preferences were understood.
- The home wasn’t always supporting people to be as independent as possible.
- The home hadn’t always made reasonable adjustments to support people with sight loss or communication barriers. Staff didn’t have access to translation services for people who needed them.
- People weren’t always supported to make informed decisions about their care at the end of their life.
- People living in the home still had limited access to their local community, although leaders had taken some first steps to improve this.
- Leaders weren’t always acting to reduce inequalities in the home. People suffering from low mood because of dementia or other health conditions were less likely to have the same opportunities as other people.
- While the new management reported and investigated safety incidents, lessons were not always being learned to protect people in future. Managers had begun making improvements to this through team meetings and additional training.
- The new management was working to improve the staff culture, but more progress was needed. After someone sustained a minor scald from spilled tea, staff hadn’t felt comfortable telling leaders who served it, suggesting a deeply rooted blame culture which could impact people’s care.
- Some staff records still showed colleagues being treated differently based on protected characteristics, with no clear action by leaders recorded.
However:
- Leaders had carried out significant work to improve the safety and decoration of the home environment. Some improvements were still needed to adapt the environment to suit people living with dementia.
The report will be published on CQC’s website in the coming days.