CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Elmbank Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People generally felt safe, and inspectors found safeguarding procedures, risk assessments, staffing and medicines arrangements. However, evacuation sheets were not yet available, wheelchair cleaning was not consistently understood, and some people reported waiting up to 25 minutes for a call alarm response.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and supervision needed for their roles. People's dietary, cultural, religious and healthcare needs were supported, and consent and mental capacity arrangements were in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care decisions and reviews, although one relative wanted more privacy when spending time with their family member.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was generally personalised and activities reflected people's interests and past lives. The complaints process was accessible, and concerns led to changes when needed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and systems for checking quality, safety, staffing and medicines. Inspectors found that the home used complaints, incidents, feedback and care reviews to make improvements.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but noted some safety and cleanliness improvements were needed.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 27 November 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and visiting health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff checks, training, safety records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were generally supported safely, with enough staff, suitable training, secure medicines and risk assessments. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and care plans usually reflected people's choices and personal needs.
Inspectors did find some issues. Evacuation equipment had not yet been provided, some staff were unclear about cleaning wheelchairs, and some people reported long waits for call alarms. The home acted during or after the inspection to order equipment, update cleaning checks and monitor response times.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw friendly interactions and found that staff took time to talk with people and understand their preferences.
“During our inspection, we saw that staff took the time to talk with people, and regularly checked if they were well.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans usually included people's likes, dislikes, choices, life history and emotional needs. Staff used this information to treat people as individuals.
“Most people's care plans contained personalised information about their likes, dislikes, preferences and choices.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and records showed staff completed the necessary training. Staff could ask senior colleagues for advice and support.
“There were enough staff on to safely support people. Rotas showed that there were consistently enough staff on duty.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home carried out checks covering areas such as health and safety, staffing and medicines. The manager acted when checks found errors or improvements were needed.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Evacuation equipment
needs fixingThe home had evacuation procedures, but it did not have purpose-made sheets recommended for moving people who could not walk during an emergency. The home ordered the equipment and arranged staff training after inspectors raised this.
“However, we discussed with the registered manager how improvements could be made by having purpose made evacuation sheets to minimise the risks of injury to non-able-bodied people in the event of a fire evacuation.” from the report
Wheelchair cleaning
needs fixingTwo wheelchairs had dried food stains. Staff were not clear about who was responsible for cleaning wheelchairs or which cleaning method to use. Cleaning wheelchairs was then added to schedules and audits.
“However, not all staff were clear who was responsible for cleaning people's wheelchairs or what the appropriate cleaning method was.” from the report
Call alarm response times
needs fixingOne person waited seven minutes for a response, while two people said they had previously waited up to 25 minutes. The home planned to set and monitor maximum response times.
“Two people told us that they had once waited up to 25 minutes before staff responded.” from the report
Following drink preferences
minorOne person's care plan said they should not be given drinks in a wine glass, but this happened during the inspection. The manager said staff would be reminded about the care plan.
“However, a person who did not want soft drinks served in a wine glass was given a drink in one.” from the report
- 01Have the purpose-made evacuation sheets been delivered, and have all relevant staff been trained to use them?
- 02Who is responsible for cleaning each person's wheelchair, what cleaning method is used, and how is this checked?
- 03What are the current target response times for call alarms, and what do recent monitoring records show?
- 04How do staff make sure small but important instructions in each person's care plan, such as drink preferences, are followed?
- 05What arrangements are available for relatives who need private time with someone living at the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; the home had previously been rated Good at the inspection published on 24 March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 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.
Every inspection of Elmbank Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.