CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elderwood Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, effective medicine management, suitable infection control and regular safety checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed for their roles. People received suitable food, health support and care based on their needs, choices and legal rights.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and caring. Inspectors saw relaxed interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and plans were up to date. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, complaints and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks and a positive culture. People, relatives and staff were asked for feedback, and the management team used this to make improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective management and no reported breaches.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over several dates in September and October 2021. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited the home. They spoke with 10 people, 10 staff, eight relatives by telephone and two health professionals. They also reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable infection control and clean, well-maintained premises. They found that staff understood people's needs and supported their choices, dignity, health and relationships.
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Care plans were personalised and kept up to date. Activities, complaints handling and links with health professionals were also viewed positively. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 6 February 2018, and this rating remained unchanged.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Call bells were answered quickly and recruitment checks were thorough.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, kindness and respect.
“The staff are kind and caring, in fact, they're fantastic.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, interests and previous lives. Staff knew people's preferences and supported independence and choice.
“Care plans were person centred, up to date and reviewed regularly.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People were supported to eat and drink enough. Meals were described as enjoyable, and individual dietary needs were catered for.
“Meals were nutritious, appetising and well presented. People enjoyed their meals” from the report
Management and improvement
The home had quality checks, regular meetings and a positive culture. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was used to make changes.
“Quality assurance systems were effective in identifying and generating improvements within the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff for my relative's needs, including at busy times?
- 02How will you keep my relative's care plan up to date as their needs, preferences or health change?
- 03What activities would be available for my relative, and how would you support their individual interests?
- 04How do you support visits and manage infection control arrangements now?
- 05How do you check staff are competent to administer medicines safely?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, the premises, care records, medicine records, recruitment and infection prevention and control arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with some areas needing closer attention.
Inspectors visited on 13 and 18 December 2017. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
They found that people were safe and cared for by trained staff. Medicines were handled safely, care plans were up to date, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities and maintaining relationships.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection.
Inspectors noted some matters to improve. Some staff and relatives felt more staff would sometimes help. Activity records did not clearly show each person's social involvement, and some end of life care plans contained little information.
Safe care systems
The home had systems to protect people from abuse, assess risks and respond to emergencies. Recruitment checks and medicines arrangements were also in place.
“People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed positive, thoughtful interactions. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“We saw staff speaking with people in a polite and respectful manner. Staff interaction was positive throughout the day.” from the report
Training and healthcare
Staff training was recorded as fully completed, with induction and ongoing support. People received help to access health professionals when needed.
“The service carefully monitored staff training and the deputy manager was able to show us records that indicated staff training was 100% completed.” from the report
Individual care and activities
Care plans were tailored and reviewed. A range of activities was available, and people could choose whether to take part.
“The care plans we looked at were up to date, easy to follow and tailored to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, spot checks, surveys and action plans to identify and address issues.
“The provider had a robust quality assurance process in place.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingStaffing levels were judged safe, but some staff, relatives and people felt there were times when more staff would be helpful. The manager said staffing levels would be reviewed.
“Safe staffing levels were in place to support people, however some staff felt that people would benefit from additional staff.” from the report
Activity records
needs fixingThe home offered activities, but its recording system did not clearly show how much social contact each person had or why activities were refused.
“The way activities were being recorded made it difficult to monitor the level of social interaction each person was involved in and what activities people had particularly enjoyed or why other activities had been refused.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingSome end of life care plans contained very little information about people's wishes. The manager planned to seek advice to improve this.
“A number of the care plans we looked at contained very little information.” from the report
Awareness of meetings
minorAlthough people and relatives were invited to meetings, some people and relatives did not know that the meetings took place. The manager said this would be addressed.
“some of the people and relatives we spoke with were not aware they were taking place.” from the report
- 01How do you check that staffing levels are enough at busy times, and what happens when people need more time or company?
- 02How will you record which activities my relative takes part in, enjoys or declines?
- 03How do you discuss and record a person's end of life wishes if they are reluctant or unable to talk about them?
- 04How are people and relatives told about meetings and given a chance to share their views?
- 05How will you review the improvements identified during this inspection?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the first visit unannounced; the previous overall rating was Good and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Elderwood Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Darlington
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £970 to £1,230 a week. 35 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.