CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Elms
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found unsafe medicines processes, incomplete risk assessments, infection control shortfalls and uncovered hot portable radiators. Staffing numbers and recruitment checks were appropriate.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Consent and mental capacity records did not always meet legal requirements. Staff also lacked some training needed to support people with conditions such as epilepsy and diabetes.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and attentive. People were treated with dignity, supported to make choices and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were not always completed promptly or detailed enough, and there was a lack of activities. People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks had not found or dealt with several important problems. The provider had action plans, was working with professionals and had recruited a new manager and deputy manager.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but risks, medicines, training, consent and oversight were not managed consistently.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 31 March and 12 April 2022. The inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked the home and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training and audits.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found problems with infection control, medicines, risk assessments and staff training. Care records did not always give staff enough detail about people's needs, and activities were limited.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported people's independence, privacy and relationships, and staffing numbers were appropriate. However, the home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring was rated Good.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were kind, attentive and respectful. They supported people's preferred routines and helped people maintain their privacy and dignity.
“Staff were kind and attentive to people's needs.” from the report
Appropriate staffing
Inspectors found staffing numbers were suitable for people's needs, and staff supported people in a timely way.
“Staffing numbers were appropriate to meet people's needs. Staff supported people in a timely manner.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to maintain relationships with relatives and friends through visits, phone calls and video calls.
“People were supported to maintain their relationships with families and friends.” from the report
Support for independence
Staff encouraged people to make choices and do as much as possible for themselves.
“Staff promoted people's independence through providing encouragement and appropriate support when it was needed.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome areas were dirty or had unpleasant smells. Soap and hand towels were not always available, cleaning records were incomplete and some staff did not wear masks correctly.
“Areas of the service were not always clean. Some areas of the service had unpleasant odours and flooring in several bedrooms was dirty.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousRecords did not always show when medicines were given or where pain patches were applied. This meant people could be at risk of receiving medicines incorrectly or too soon.
“Medicines were not managed safely. Staff did not record the time when they administered medicines such as pain relief.” from the report
Risk information and care records
seriousRisk assessments, emergency evacuation plans and care plans were not always completed promptly or detailed enough. Records did not always include current advice from healthcare professionals.
“Risks to people's wellbeing and safety had not always been assessed and records did not show how they should be managed.” from the report
Consent and staff training
seriousMental capacity and best-interest records did not always show that legal requirements had been followed. Staff had not received all the training needed for people's specific health conditions.
“The failure to ensure care and treatment was delivered with appropriate consent was a breach of regulation 11(1)(2)(3) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's checks had not identified or dealt with several shortfalls. There was no effective system to analyse accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns and learn from them.
“Quality assurance systems had not identified some of the shortfalls found during the inspection.” from the report
Few activities
minorInspectors found a lack of activities, with none taking place during either inspection day. The new manager had started asking people what activities they wanted.
“There were no activities held during both days of the inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines records, including recording administration times and the position of pain patches?
- 02How do you now check that infection control, cleaning, hand-washing supplies and PPE are consistently managed?
- 03What training have staff completed for people's specific needs, including epilepsy and diabetes?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications now recorded and reviewed?
- 05How do you monitor care plans, accidents, safeguarding concerns and other quality checks to make sure problems are found and fixed?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions and infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of this newly registered service, while the previous provider had also been rated Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 June 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 The Elms
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 August 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of
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 £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.