CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elmdon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding procedures, risks were assessed and managed, and staffing levels were reviewed as one person's needs increased. Medicines, recruitment, fire safety and infection control were also found to be well managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had assessed needs and care plans, and staff had suitable training, induction and supervision. People received suitable food and drink and were supported to access healthcare services.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared relaxed and content. Staff understood their individual communication, respected privacy and dignity, and supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's preferences and communication needs. Staff supported relationships, activities and complaints, although two people did not want to leave the home because of their individual mental health needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had audits, quality checks and reporting systems. Managers were described as approachable and supportive, but the registered manager and project manager also managed other services and were not present in the home full time.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Elmdon House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with managers also covering other services.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 February 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff and managers, checked care records, recruitment and training files, and reviewed other records. The inspector also spoke with relatives and health and social care professionals.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, received their medicines properly, and had care plans that reflected their needs and choices. Staff were trained, kind and familiar with how people communicated through actions, facial expressions and body language.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The previous inspection, published in November 2017, also rated the service Good. No breaches or enforcement action were reported.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and understood their individual ways of communicating. People appeared relaxed, content and comfortable in the home.
“Those staff we met were kind, friendly and genuinely cared for the three people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, preferences, relationships and how they wanted staff to support them.
“The plans detailed what was important to them, who was part of their life and also included what type of person (staff member) they wanted to support them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices and take part in their own care, including through facial expressions, body language and gestures.
“People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and have as much choice and control in their lives as possible.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider used audits, reports and meetings to monitor care, medicines, infection control and the safety of the home.
“The provider had a programme of audits and quality checks in place to ensure people, the staff team and premises were safe.” from the report
Managers cover other services
minorThe registered manager and project manager were not in the home full time because they also managed other services. Senior staff and an on-call manager provided cover.
“The registered manager and project manager, both recent appointments, covered other care services run by the Midway Care Group and therefore not present in the home full time.” from the report
Limited verbal feedback from residents
minorThe people living in the home could not give verbal feedback because of communication difficulties. Inspectors therefore relied on observation, records and discussions with staff, relatives and professionals.
“We met with the three people who lived at Elmdon House but because they each had communication difficulties, they were unable to give us verbal feedback about their life at Elmdon House.” from the report
Some people did not take part in activities outside
minorTwo of the three people did not want to leave the home because of their individual mental health needs. Staff respected this, while supporting another person to attend community activities.
“However, two of the three people did not want to leave the home because of their individual mental health impairment.” from the report
- 01How would you understand and respond to my relative's communication if they cannot explain verbally that they are unhappy or need help?
- 02How often is the registered manager physically present, and who is responsible for the home when both managers are working at other services?
- 03What activities could my relative take part in inside and outside the home, and how would you respect their choice if they did not want to go out?
- 04How would you decide whether the home is suitable for my relative alongside the people already living there?
- 05How would you support my relative if they later needed end of life care or nursing support?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the premises and care provided, with ratings given for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 3 October 2017. One inspector reviewed information before the visit, spoke with all five people living in the home, talked with staff and the registered manager, and checked care and management records.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management and suitable risk assessments. Staff were trained and knew people well. People were treated kindly, involved in their care, supported to make choices and helped to follow their interests and routines.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the home was meeting the relevant standards at the time of the inspection. It had remained Good since the previous inspection in November 2015.
Safe staffing and risk support
There were enough staff to support people safely. Staff understood individual risks and used consistent approaches to reduce anxiety and other risks.
“People felt safe living at Elmdon House and there were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Kind, individual care
Staff knew people's small preferences and communication styles. They supported privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in care decisions.
“Staff were caring and knew people well. They approached people in a friendly way and we saw interactions between people and the staff were positive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences and daily routines. People were supported to enjoy activities, hobbies and time with family.
“Care plans were person centred and contained detailed information about people's preferences and daily routines.” from the report
Effective oversight
The manager and provider carried out regular checks on areas such as the environment and medicines. Feedback from people was collected and acted on.
“There were effective systems to monitor and review the quality of the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, such as choking or anxiety?
- 02How would you use my relative's preferred way of communicating in their care plan?
- 03How are people and their families involved in monthly care reviews?
- 04What activities and community opportunities could be offered to match my relative's interests?
- 05How are medicines, equipment and care quality checked, and how would you tell us about any problems?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the whole home; inspectors spoke with all five people living there but examined the records of two people in detail. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 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 Elmdon House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Solihull
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 £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.