CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elton Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Elton Park Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and responsive, but management and safety records still need strengthening.
Inspectors made an unannounced comprehensive visit on 27 April 2023. They spoke with people and staff, observed care, and reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files, training records, complaints, audits and safety checks.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures. People were supported by caring staff, received their medicines, had food and drink choices, and were helped to maintain their independence and relationships.
However, some improvements were not yet fully in place or consistent. Daily care records did not always give enough detail, learning from incidents had not always prevented similar events, and the home did not have a registered manager. The overall rating changed from Inadequate to Requires Improvement, and the home was no longer in special measures or in breach of regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors staff were kind and respectful. Observations showed staff promoted people's choices, privacy and independence.
“People received support from staff who were caring and who promoted their choice, privacy and independence.” from the report
Improved medicines support
Medicine audits had improved, staff had their training and competence checked, and records showed people received medicines when needed.
“Records showed people received their medicines when needed.” from the report
Choice and consent
People were involved in decisions about their daily lives, including when to get up, go to bed, eat and spend their time.
“People told us they chose what they wanted to do, and this was respected.” from the report
Activities and relationships
An activities programme was in place, and staff spent time with people individually when the activities staff member was away.
“An activities programme was in place and people told us they felt they had things to do.” from the report
Incomplete daily records
needs fixingDaily records varied in quality. Some did not say what personal care had been provided or how people were presenting.
“There were ongoing improvements being made in the daily records maintained.” from the report
Lessons from incidents
seriousInspectors found that actions taken after an incident had not stopped a similar incident happening. The manager said further action had been taken, but this needed to be sustained.
“The systems of learning lessons and reducing repeated incidents had not been robust.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe previous registered manager had left and another manager had also left. The home was being managed temporarily while recruitment continued.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Staffing as needs change
needs fixingStaffing had improved and was adequate during the visit, but inspectors recommended continuous review as more people move in or care needs increase.
“We recommend the provider keep the staffing levels under continuous review and respond when more people move into the service and/or people's care needs increase.” from the report
Drink records
minorRecords of people's daily drinks had improved, but on some days the recorded amount was below the suggested target.
“Records for how much people had to drink each day had improved, but some days they were below their suggested target.” from the report
- 01Who is managing the home now, and when do you expect to appoint a permanent registered manager?
- 02How do you check that daily records fully describe the personal care and support each person receives?
- 03What happened after the similar incidents mentioned in the report, and how will you know the steps taken are working?
- 04How will staffing levels change as more people move in or residents' needs increase?
- 05How do you respond when records show that someone has had less to drink than their suggested target?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it checked whether the provider had acted on the previous inspection's action plan. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 2023 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, September 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious concerns about safety, staffing and management.
The inspection took place on 2 and 3 August 2022. One inspector visited, spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care records, staff files, medicines records and audits.
Inspectors found there were not enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Safeguarding arrangements and risk assessments were not reliable. Care records did not give staff enough detail, and records of people's fluid intake were poor.
The home was not consistently clean and hygienic. Staff training had gaps, including training about safeguarding, dementia, infection control and the Mental Capacity Act. Inspectors did observe kind interactions, safe parts of medicines administration, access to health professionals and visits from relatives and friends.
The overall rating was Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Requires Improvement. This was the first inspection under the current provider. The home was placed in special measures.
Kind interactions
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff, and inspectors observed compassionate and respectful interactions.
“We saw that staff were compassionate and caring when interacting with people.” from the report
Health professional support
The home worked with health professionals and received support and training, including help with pressure ulcer care.
“A health care professional told us they had seen improvements in the service and training had been provided to the staff team, including pressure ulcer care.” from the report
Some medicines practice
Inspectors observed parts of medicines administration and found this was done safely, although the audit system had weaknesses.
“We observed parts of medicine administration, which was done safely.” from the report
Family visits
People were able to receive visits from relatives and friends, and the home was following government guidance at the time.
“People told us they could have visits from their family and friends.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousStaffing levels were not adjusted to people's needs. Staff were not always present in communal areas, leaving people at risk.
“There were not enough staff working in the service, staff did not have time to spend with people, such as engaging them in social interaction.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousThe provider had not acted on safeguarding concerns or put enough protection in place. Not all staff had received safeguarding training.
“The registered manager and provider had not recognised and acted on safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Poor cleanliness
seriousInspectors found dust, cobwebs, unhygienic storage and equipment, and no routine infection control audits.
“The service was not clean and hygienic and there were no infection control audits routinely completed to assist the registered manager to identify and address shortfalls.” from the report
Training gaps
needs fixingTraining records did not show that staff had all the knowledge needed for people's complex needs. No staff had received DoLS training, and dementia training was also absent.
“We found gaps in staff training, which did not evidence they received the training and support they needed to meet people's needs effectively.” from the report
Limited activities and personal information
needs fixingPeople had limited meaningful activity outside a daily group activity. Care records contained little information about people's histories, preferences and how conditions affected them.
“There was no ongoing meaningful interaction and social activity provided to people throughout the day.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now used for the number and needs of people living here, and is a dependency tool in place?
- 02What action has been taken after the two safeguarding referrals, and how are people protected from further harm?
- 03Have all residents now got up-to-date risk assessments and detailed care plans, including falls, behaviour, fluid intake and health conditions?
- 04What staff training has been completed in safeguarding, dementia, infection control, moving and handling, the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS?
- 05What regular checks now confirm that the home is clean and that previous problems in bathrooms and the wet room have been fixed?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection under the current provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 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.
Every inspection of Elton Park Care Home
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 May 2021.
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 Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.