CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Elms Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some relatives were not always kept involved or updated.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited on 18 and 25 January 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were generally happy, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs.
There were some shortfalls. Views about staffing levels were mixed, some pressure injury plans did not clearly say how often people should be repositioned, and some relatives did not feel involved in care planning or updates. The management team agreed to take action.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published in November 2019, with a breach of regulation. Inspectors found improvements had been made and there was no longer a breach.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw people looking relaxed and happy, with staff protecting privacy and encouraging independence.
“People were happy living at The Elms Nursing Home and spoke positively about the care they received and the running of the service.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine records showed people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and medicines were checked through regular audits.
“A review of the MARs confirmed people had received all their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered varied activities, outings and celebrations. People were involved in choosing activities, and staff also supported individual interests.
“There was a varied activities programme in place for people to take part in if they wished to.” from the report
Improved leadership and oversight
Inspectors found regular audits, action plans and a clear management structure. The home worked with health and social care professionals to provide joined-up care.
“The provider had robust systems and processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
needs fixingInspectors observed staffing that met people's needs during the visits, but some people, relatives and a health professional felt staff were stretched. One day had longer than usual call bell response times, which managers agreed to investigate.
“However, we received mixed views from people and relatives in relation to the staffing levels.” from the report
Relative involvement
needs fixingSome relatives said they had not been involved in care planning or kept informed about changes in people's needs. The home had identified this and planned three-monthly reviews and drop-in sessions.
“I've had no involvement in it or read it, [care plan]” from the report
Pressure injury plans
needs fixingSome risk assessments and care plans did not clearly state how often people at risk of pressure injuries should be repositioned. The home acted immediately, and staff understood the required support.
“Risk assessments and care plans did not always contain clear and detailed information for staff to follow in relation to the frequency of position changing.” from the report
Baths and showers
minorSome people said staff did not always offer or provide baths or showers when wanted. Managers agreed to discuss this with staff and put systems in place.
“[Person] loves a bath but staff don't always offer or provide one.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that staffing levels are enough at busy times, and what did you find after reviewing the longer call bell response times?
- 02How will relatives be invited to three-monthly care reviews and kept updated when a person's needs change?
- 03How do you record and check the repositioning needs of people at risk of pressure injuries?
- 04How do you make sure people are offered baths or showers in line with their preferences?
- 05How do you check that care reflects each person's food preferences, likes and dislikes?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC questions, including care, premises, infection control, records and management systems; the previous overall rating was Requires Improvement in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control during a recent COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 3 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control after a coronavirus outbreak and information of concern.
Inspectors found the home was clean and that staff used personal protective equipment correctly. Cleaning of frequently touched surfaces, laundry arrangements, testing and infection control audits were in place.
Visitors were temporarily not allowed because of the outbreak, although end-of-life visits were supported. A visiting pod and video or telephone calls were available. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, with frequent cleaning of high-touch surfaces and uncluttered communal areas.
“The care home was clean, and staff were observed to have plentiful supply of cleaning products and personal protective equipment” from the report
PPE and staff practice
Staff were using protective equipment correctly. Their infection control practice was monitored by the management team.
“Staff were using PPE correctly and in accordance with current guidance” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
People and staff were routinely tested, and detailed risk assessments were used to manage COVID-19 risks.
“The provider routinely tested people and staff for Covid-19.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
The home had an appointment system, a visiting pod and risk assessments for visits. End-of-life visits continued during the visitor closure.
“The provider had implemented a robust visiting process, which had been shared with people's relatives.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are visitors now allowed, and what rules apply to visiting the home?
- 02How are end-of-life visits arranged if there is another outbreak?
- 03How often are residents and staff currently tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 04How do you check that staff are using PPE and following infection control procedures correctly?
- 05How can residents keep in contact with relatives if in-person visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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.
Every inspection of The Elms Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.