CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ellesmere House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Ellesmere House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some redecoration still unfinished.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 April 2019. One inspector spoke with six people, the manager and staff, observed care, and checked care records and quality records.
The home was calm and homely. People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were kind. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments, food, healthcare and consent arrangements were found to be well managed.
Inspectors found personalised care, regular activities and good involvement of people and families. The home had effective checks on quality and safety. Some redecoration was still being completed.
Kind relationships
Staff had developed close and positive relationships with people. Inspectors saw care being given warmly and compassionately.
“The atmosphere at Ellesmere House was calm and homely; the registered manager and staff had developed strong, familiar and positive relationships with people.” from the report
Safe care
Risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing levels were suitable, and medicines were managed safely.
“Risks to people had been assessed and provided detailed information around people's individual risks in order for staff to keep them safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences and provided care in the way people wanted. Care plans were detailed and up to date.
“People received person-centred care that was based on their individual needs.” from the report
Strong management
Inspectors found a positive culture and regular checks on care quality and safety. Staff said they felt supported and able to share concerns.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and used effectively to monitor key aspects of the service.” from the report
Redecoration not complete
minorSome areas still needed redecoration at the time of inspection. The report says this work was in progress.
“The registered manager told us there were still areas that required completing but this was in progress.” from the report
- 01Which areas of the home still need redecoration, and when will this work be completed?
- 02How are activities planned for people who prefer smaller groups or staying in their rooms?
- 03How will my relative and our family be involved in care plan reviews?
- 04How will you make sure my relative's food, drink and dietary preferences continue to be met?
- 05How are changes in my relative's health needs identified and referred to healthcare professionals?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 2019 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found the home was well managed and that earlier improvements had been sustained.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 7 February 2017. One inspector spoke with three people using the service, a relative, two staff members and the acting manager. Records about care, audits, surveys and meetings were also checked.
The inspection looked only at how the home was managed. Inspectors found regular checks, feedback from people and relatives, staff meetings and plans to act on any problems. People and staff said the management team was approachable and supportive.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for being well-led. The report says earlier improvements in quality monitoring had been sustained. The other four areas were not assessed in this inspection and carry over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Improvements maintained
Inspectors found that improvements to the home's quality monitoring had continued and were being maintained.
“improvements that had been made were being sustained.” from the report
Open management
People and staff described the management as approachable. Staff said they could raise concerns and that their views were listened to.
“People were confident about the management and staff that supported them in the service.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The acting manager carried out checks on areas including care plans, accidents, incidents, medicines and health and safety. Action plans were made where shortfalls were found.
“They carried out regular audits, for example, on health and safety, care plans, accidents and incident and medicines.” from the report
People's views used
The provider gathered views through surveys, meetings and care reviews, and used the feedback to help shape the service.
“People were given the opportunity to express their views regarding the running of the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Has the acting manager now completed the CQC registration process?
- 02What did the home's latest audits of medicines, accidents, incidents and care plans find?
- 03When a quality check finds a shortfall, how is the action plan followed up and completed?
- 04How can residents and relatives raise concerns or give feedback now?
- 05Can we see the previous comprehensive inspection report covering safety, effectiveness, caring and responsiveness?
This was a focused inspection of management and the well-led question only; the other ratings were not reassessed and carry over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 March 2017 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 Ellesmere House
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- March 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- September 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.