CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ellesmere House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors looked specifically at staffing and infection control, rather than the whole question. They saw call bells answered and welfare checks completed, but noted pressure when short-notice staffing cover could not be arranged.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported patiently with food and drink. However, inspectors found some dining practices that did not consistently provide a dignified experience and recommended professional guidance.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a Caring rating. This targeted inspection did not assess all parts of the service.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a Responsive rating. This targeted inspection did not assess all parts of the service.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff mainly said they felt supported and listened to. The management team used meetings, audits and outside organisations to respond to COVID-19 issues and identify improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Rated Good overall, but this targeted inspection found mixed views about staffing, unfinished safeguarding investigations and a dining experience that needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 6, 14 and 24 August 2020. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked staffing records, infection control, training, complaints and quality audits.
People generally said staff were kind and that they received the help they needed. Inspectors saw calm, unhurried care, answered call bells and staff checking people's welfare. However, relatives gave mixed views about staffing, and some staff said short-notice cover could be difficult.
The home had good infection control arrangements, including suitable protective equipment and garden visits. Some safeguarding concerns raised during the pandemic were still awaiting investigation outcomes. Inspectors also found problems with the dining experience on one unit and recommended professional guidance.
The overall rating stayed Good because this was a targeted inspection. The previous Good rating from March 2020 was not replaced. The inspection did not assess all parts of the key questions.
Calm care
Inspectors saw care being delivered without rushing. Staff responded to people's needs and answered call bells promptly.
“During our observations we saw that people's care was delivered in an unhurried way and the atmosphere on the units was calm and orderly.” from the report
Infection control
The home had protective equipment, staff training and visiting arrangements designed to reduce infection risks.
“People were protected by good infection control practices which were based on current guidance from the government and local public health professionals.” from the report
Food and drinks support
Staff supported people patiently at lunchtime. Drinks and snacks were available, and staff encouraged people to drink.
“We observed how people were supported at lunch time on each of the four units and found that staff provided support in a patient and relaxed manner.” from the report
Staff support
Staff mainly felt supported by the management team. The home used meetings and other arrangements to keep staff informed during the pandemic.
“Staff predominantly told us they felt supported by the senior management team at the service.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home supported phone and video contact and introduced booked garden visits, with a standby list for cancellations.
“The visits in the garden scheme offered a booking service to promote a fair allocation of visits and there was also a standby list for relatives and friends in case of last-minute cancellations.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
needs fixingRelatives gave different accounts of whether there were enough staff. Inspectors also heard that the working environment could become pressured when short-notice cover was unavailable.
“We received comments that on occasions staffing cover from the clinical lead or another employee could not be arranged and this resulted in a pressurised working environment.” from the report
Safeguarding investigations
seriousThe home had received an increased number of safeguarding concerns during the pandemic. Some investigation outcomes were still outstanding when inspectors visited.
“At the time of our inspection visit the provider was awaiting the investigation outcomes from the local authority safeguarding team for some of these concerns.” from the report
Dining experience
needs fixingOn one unit, a stained tablecloth, an incorrect description of a meal and limited table equipment affected the dining experience. Inspectors recommended professional guidance for supporting people living with dementia.
“We recommend the provider seeks professional guidance to improve the dining experience for people living with dementia.” from the report
Mice infestation
needs fixingThe premises were clean during this inspection, but relatives said the mice problem found at the previous inspection was continuing. The provider was still taking action.
“We received comments from relatives during this inspection that the mice infestation was an ongoing problem, which the provider was still taking action to address.” from the report
Supervision had paused
minorThe provider's monitoring found that one-to-one staff supervision meetings, paused during the pandemic, needed to restart.
“This report identified areas for improvement, for example it was noted that one to one staff supervision meetings which had been paused during the height of the pandemic needed to recommence.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels on each unit, and how do you cover staff sickness, absences and training time?
- 02What were the outcomes of the safeguarding investigations that were still open during the inspection?
- 03What changes have you made to improve the dining experience for people living with dementia?
- 04Has the mice infestation been fully resolved, and what evidence can you provide?
- 05Have one-to-one staff supervision meetings restarted, and how regularly do they now take place?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about staffing, staff support and infection control; it did not assess the whole of any key question, so the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 2020 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some concerns about mice, food temperatures and podiatry access.
Inspectors visited without notice on three dates. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and dignity, received personalised care, had enough staff support and were helped to keep active and maintain relationships.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement and there had been one breach of regulation. At this inspection, inspectors found improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach. They did note reports of mice, some mixed views about food temperatures and mixed comments about podiatry access.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff. Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“People appeared relaxed and at ease with staff, and we observed positive interactions.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Staff were safely recruited and there was enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed through organised systems, training and checks.
“Robust and well-organised systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences and were updated when needs changed. Staff supported people to maintain relationships and take part in activities.
“Care plans were personalised and provided staff with guidance about how people wished to be supported.” from the report
Improvement since the previous inspection
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The provider had addressed the previous regulatory breach.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Mice reported in the building
needs fixingRelatives and visiting professionals said they had seen mice. The provider had an active treatment plan with a pest control company, but families should ask whether the problem has been fully resolved.
“We received concerned comments from relatives and visiting professionals about their sightings of mice within the building.” from the report
Some meals were not always hot
minorFeedback about the food was mixed. One comment said meals were not always hot, and the home was due to launch a new menu programme.
“People and their relatives told us they were satisfied with the food service. Comments included, "Fairly good, it's not always hot", "Absolutely good" and "An offer of two choices are given to us and you have to choose one.” from the report
- 01What was the final outcome of the pest control treatment for the mice, and how do you check that the problem has been resolved?
- 02How do you make sure meals are served at the right temperature, and what changed after the mixed feedback about food?
- 03How often can residents see a podiatrist, and how do you check that no one has missed care they need?
- 04How do you review care plans with residents and relatives when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How do you monitor call bell response times and staffing levels for people with different care needs?
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 2020 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 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- September 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvement
- October 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kensington and Chelsea
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 £980 to £1,270 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.