CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elm Bank Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk controls and safe medicines management. They were also assured that infection prevention and control measures followed government guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff supported nutrition, healthcare and lawful decision-making. Some training had been affected by the pandemic, but the home had taken steps to ensure staff skills were suitable.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with warmth, respect and dignity. They were involved in decisions about their care and supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and staff knew people well. The home supported communication, activities, family contact and end of life care, although some activities were changed because of the pandemic.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and supportive culture, positive management feedback and quality checks. Some action plans were not always signed off as completed, although follow-up audits suggested the actions had been met.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed care, with some quality actions not always signed off.
Inspectors visited on 20, 21, 26 and 27 January 2021. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, medicines and the use of protective equipment, and checked care, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable infection control measures and care that reflected people's preferences.
People and relatives spoke positively about the care and said they felt safe. The home supported people's healthcare, communication, independence and end of life wishes. Inspectors noted that some improvement actions were not always signed off, although later audits indicated the actions had been completed.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they trusted the staff and felt safe. Safeguarding concerns were reported and investigated appropriately.
“People and their family members said they felt very safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Trained staff administered medicines safely, knew people's preferences and completed medicine records appropriately.
“Medicine administration records were completed appropriately.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, and staff were described as knowing people well. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“Care plans included people's preferences and clearly set out how people's needs should be met.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff speaking warmly and respectfully. People were supported with dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff spoke to people in a warm, engaging and respectful manner.” from the report
Positive management
Relatives spoke positively about the staff team and management. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and identify improvements.
“A range of audits and quality assurance measures were in place to drive improvements.” from the report
Action records were not always completed
minorSome improvement actions were not signed off as completed. Inspectors said follow-up audits had not found the same concerns, suggesting the actions had been met.
“Actions were not always signed off as completed.” from the report
Some training was delayed
minorThe pandemic had affected delivery of some staff training. The home had taken steps to make sure the staff mix remained suitable for people's needs.
“The pandemic had impacted the delivery of some training, but measures had been taken to ensure the skill mix of staff was appropriate to meet people's needs in a safe way.” from the report
- 01How do you currently review staffing levels against people's changing needs?
- 02How do you record that actions from audits or improvement plans have been completed?
- 03Which staff training was affected by the pandemic, and has all required training now been completed?
- 04How will you support my relative's preferred communication, activities and contact with family?
- 05How are medicines, infection control and people's individual risks checked on an ongoing basis?
This was the first inspection under the new provider and examined all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous Good rating was under the previous provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 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.
Every inspection of Elm Bank Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2020.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 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.