CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Elms
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and assessed risks. Staff gave medicines safely, although two medicine errors had occurred in the previous year and one staff member was one month overdue for refresher training.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and support to meet people's individual needs. The home worked with health professionals and supported people's nutrition, healthcare and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind, friendly and respectful interactions. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and used their communication plans.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care was mostly personalised, but some care plans and risk assessments were not up to date or reviewed within the required timescales. Activities were described by some staff and a family member as minimal, with limited outings.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and systems to monitor quality and safety. However, the provider's February 2018 audit had identified that care plan audits were not being completed.
What inspectors found, May 2018
The Elms was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care but care records and activities needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 April 2018. One inspector reviewed records for three people, observed care, spoke with staff and managers, and gathered views from families and health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring care, and for being well-led. Inspectors found trained staff, safe medicines practice, suitable staffing, respectful support and good links with health professionals.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being responsive. Some care plans and risk assessments were not reviewed often enough or updated quickly. Inspectors also heard that activities were limited, with few outings or day trips.
Kind and respectful staff
People appeared comfortable with staff, and inspectors saw caring and respectful support. Families said they were confident in the care provided.
“People were supported by a dedicated and caring staff team who knew them well.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Medicines were administered by trained staff and errors had been investigated.
“People continued to be given their medicines safely by staff who were appropriately trained to administer medicines and whose competency to do so was tested regularly.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff received a broad range of training, including training about epilepsy and autism. They also had regular supervision.
“A mandatory set of training topics and specific training was provided and regularly up-dated to support staff to meet people's individual and diverse needs.” from the report
Good support for health needs
The home worked with health and social care professionals and acted on health concerns. Professionals said staff communicated well and acted appropriately.
“The home staff were obviously aware of the need to get investigations done quickly and acted on their resident's behalf appropriately when making contact with hospital services.” from the report
Care records were not always current
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments were not reviewed within the required timescales. One up-to-date report about choking risk had not been moved into the main care file, creating a potential safety risk.
“There was a potential for staff to not follow the most up to date guidelines putting the person at risk.” from the report
Limited activities and outings
needs fixingSome staff and a family member said activities were minimal, with little opportunity for outings or day trips. The home said this work was still in progress.
“We were advised by some staff and a family member that activities provided were minimal with little opportunity for outings or day trips.” from the report
Care plan audits were not completed
needs fixingThe provider's February 2018 audit found that care plan audits were not being undertaken. This was added to the home's improvement plan.
“We noted from the last provider audit conducted in February 2018 that care plan audits were not being undertaken” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure professional guidance, such as speech and language therapy advice about choking risks, is placed promptly in the main care plan?
- 02How often are each person's care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and how is completion checked?
- 03What activities and outings are now available, and how are they matched to each person's abilities, preferences and wellbeing?
- 04What action has been completed following the finding that care plan audits were not being undertaken?
- 05How do you cover short-notice staff absences, particularly at weekends?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, using observations, records, staff discussions and feedback from families and professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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 The Elms
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.