CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elms House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, cleaning, testing, visiting arrangements and the infection-control policy.
- 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, although the visit considered infection-control arrangements and staffing pressures.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection-control arrangements at Elms House.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 February 2022. The inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
The inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, carried out enhanced cleaning, arranged regular testing and had an up-to-date infection-control policy. They also found processes for visitors, including testing, temperature checks, hand sanitising and PPE.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Staff infection-control training
All staff had received training in infection prevention and control and the safe use of PPE. PPE was available and disposed of safely.
“All staff had received training in infection prevention and control and the safe use personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Cleaning and testing
The home carried out enhanced cleaning and regular testing for people living there and staff.
“Staff and people living at the home were being tested regularly in line with Government guidance, to ensure that appropriate action could be taken if anyone contracted the COVID-19 virus.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had clear entry procedures for visitors, including testing, temperature checks, hand sanitising and PPE.
“The provider ensured there were clear processes in place for visitors to the service.” from the report
Keeping people connected
When visits inside the home were not possible, the manager supported people to stay in contact through telephone and video calls.
“During periods when visits within the home environment had not been possible, the manager had supported people to maintain contact with people who were important to them, through telephone and video calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 or other sickness?
- 02What are the current rules for family visits, and what checks or protective equipment are required?
- 03How do you support residents to keep in contact with family if visits inside the home are not possible?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested when there is a risk of COVID-19?
- 05How do you make sure staff continue to follow infection-control and PPE procedures?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not rate the other care areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 2022 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, July 2018
Elms House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some training and safety records needing attention.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 17 and 18 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints, safety checks and quality audits.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People said they felt safe, respected and well supported. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely and care plans were personal and regularly reviewed.
Some staff training was out of date. The home also needed to improve the security of medicine cabinet keys and update its Legionella risk assessment. The home took action shortly after the inspection to update training, complete medicine competence checks and review the risk assessment.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection. The report found no serious risks or concerns and no breaches of regulations.
Kind and respectful support
People said staff were caring and patient. Inspectors saw staff communicate sensitively, protect privacy and offer reassurance when people were confused or needed help.
“We observed staff supporting people sensitively and comforting people when they were confused or needed reassurance.” from the report
Personalised care
Care files included people's needs, risks, likes, dislikes and abilities. Staff supported people in ways that reflected their preferences and promoted independence.
“Each care file was personalised and contained information about what people were able to do for themselves, the support they needed and how this should be provided by staff.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Inspectors observed medicines being given safely and found that medicine records had been completed appropriately. Monthly medicine audits were used to address shortfalls.
“We observed a member of staff administering medicines to people and found that this was done safely.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff found the management approachable and supportive. Regular meetings allowed people to suggest changes, and inspectors found evidence that suggestions were acted on.
“We saw evidence that people's suggestions were acted upon and used to improve the service.” from the report
Out-of-date staff training
needs fixingSome medicine, infection control and other staff training had not been updated for some time. The home arranged updates shortly after the inspection, but families should check how this is now monitored.
“We noted that some staff training had not been updated for some time.” from the report
Medicine cabinet keys
needs fixingThe medicine cabinet keys were kept in a kitchen drawer rather than stored more securely. The manager arranged for this to be changed after the inspection.
“We noted that the keys for the medicines cabinet were kept in a drawer in the kitchen.” from the report
Legionella risk assessment
needs fixingThe Legionella risk assessment had not been reviewed for some time. The deputy manager arranged for it to be reviewed shortly after the inspection.
“We noted that the Legionella risk assessment had not been reviewed for some time.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine, infection control and other staff training remains up to date?
- 02Where are the medicine cabinet keys kept now, and how are access and medicine checks recorded?
- 03Has the Legionella risk assessment been reviewed, and how often will it be reviewed in future?
- 04Are monthly accident and falls audits now completed and recorded?
- 05What plans are in place for end of life care, including the policy and staff training mentioned in the report?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the home, care and all five CQC questions, with the overall Good rating continuing from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 2018 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 Elms House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 April 2012.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.