CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Elmhurst Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. This included PPE, testing, safe admissions, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and arrangements to support family contact during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2021. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus pandemic.
They found good practice in visiting arrangements, family contact, PPE use, staff areas, social distancing and cleaning. People could use window visits, telephone calls and electronic tablets for video calls.
The inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including admissions, testing, shielding and possible outbreaks. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a full overall quality rating.
Family contact
The home arranged some visits and helped people stay in touch through window visits, telephone calls and video calls.
“People also had access to electronic tablets to make video calls.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found the environment clean, with regular cleaning of frequently touched areas and deep cleaning.
“The environment was clean. Staff completed regular touch point cleaning and deep cleans to ensure the risk of cross transmission was reduced.” from the report
Staff safety arrangements
A separate staff entrance and PPE area, together with staggered breaks, helped reduce unnecessary mixing.
“A new staff entrance had been designated, which enabled staff easy access to a dedicated donning/doffing of PPE area” from the report
Learning and feedback
Staff were encouraged to suggest safety improvements, and the home worked with infection control professionals and another home to share learning.
“Staff worked closely with infection control professionals and colleagues from the provider's other home to share learning” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have visiting arrangements changed since this inspection, and what happens if visiting needs to be restricted?
- 02Are residents still supported with window visits, telephone calls or video calls when ordinary visits cannot take place?
- 03What PPE, testing and isolation arrangements are used now for residents and staff?
- 04How often are touch points and shared areas cleaned, and how is deep cleaning recorded?
- 05What is the current plan for preventing and managing an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full assessment of the other CQC key questions and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some records and best-interest decisions needing improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home registered in September 2017. It was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 20 March 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable recruitment checks, kind care, good access to health professionals and a friendly atmosphere.
There were some areas to improve. Risk assessments and care plans needed more frequent evaluation. Inspectors also found that best-interest processes were not always recorded when medicines were mixed, and that information was not always accessible for people living with dementia.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind, caring and friendly. Inspectors observed warm and respectful interactions, and found that people's privacy and dignity were maintained.
“People and relatives told us that staff were very kind, caring and friendly and we saw that interactions were warm and respectful.” from the report
Enough staff and safe medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Medicines records showed regular administration, and staff had training and competency checks.
“There were enough staff deployed to support people safely.” from the report
Good health support
People had access to GPs and other health professionals. Staff recognised changes in people's health and made referrals for specialist advice when needed.
“People had good access to a range of healthcare services.” from the report
Activities and involvement
The home offered varied activities and entertainment, while people and relatives were involved in care decisions and the running of the home.
“A varied programme of activities and entertainment were available.” from the report
Visible management
The management team was present in the home, knew people and staff well, and used regular audits and feedback to monitor quality.
“The provider and registered manager had a good oversight of what was happening in the service.” from the report
Best-interest medicine decisions
needs fixingFor one person, some medicines were mixed before administration without records explaining why or showing that a best-interest meeting had taken place. The home said this would be addressed.
“Documentation did not show the reasons why they were being mixed or that a best interest meeting had taken place with the relevant people.” from the report
Care records needed more detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not give enough detail about how staff should support independence and provide care in the person's preferred way. Reviews and evaluations also needed to be more frequent.
“However, they did not give detailed instructions of what staff needed to do to help maintain the person's independence and deliver the care in the way the person wanted.” from the report
Risk reviews
needs fixingRisk assessments were in place, but inspectors said they should be evaluated more often so they stayed up to date.
“Staff reviewed risk assessments but we identified that these should be evaluated more often to ensure they remain current.” from the report
Accessible information
minorPeople living with dementia did not always have accessible information to help them choose meals, find their way around or see the activities available.
“Minimal signage was available for people who lived with dementia to find their way around.” from the report
- 01How often are each resident's risk assessments now evaluated, and what happens when a risk changes?
- 02How do you record best-interest decisions when medicines need to be mixed or given to someone who lacks mental capacity?
- 03How detailed are current care plans about supporting independence and each person's preferred way of receiving care?
- 04What accessible menus, signs and activity information are now available for people living with dementia?
- 05How are the recent refurbishment and the division into two units affecting staffing levels and residents' movement around the home?
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and both the premises and care provided; it was the first inspection since registration in September 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 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 Elmhurst Nursing Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 September 2017.
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.