CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Elms Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, risk assessments and medicines management were found to be safe, although inspectors identified an issue with access to some emergency evacuation equipment and a recruitment reference process.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained, supervised and understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported with eating, drinking and their health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and knew people's wishes and preferences. Inspectors saw people treated with respect, privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, abilities and choices, and were updated when needs changed. People and relatives knew how to complain, although some complaint contact information was inaccurate.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, approachable leadership and quality checks. Staff said they felt supported, and the home sought views from people, relatives and staff.
What inspectors found, February 2019
The Elms Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some records and building improvements needing attention.
Inspectors visited on 24 October and 14 November 2018 without giving advance notice. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and other documents.
The home was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were protected from abuse, medicines were given safely, and staff were described as trained, supportive and knowledgeable. People told inspectors they were treated with kindness, respect and dignity.
Inspectors found personalised care plans, a wide activities programme and an open culture where people and relatives could raise concerns. Some areas of the building looked tired, and a few small issues were identified with recruitment references, emergency equipment and complaint information.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring, and inspectors saw staff speaking kindly and encouragingly. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines and abilities. Staff knew people well and adapted support when needs changed.
“People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored and given safely by trained staff. Staffing levels were considered sufficient, and call bells were answered promptly.
“People were given their prescribed medicines in a timely and safe manner.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Staff described managers as approachable and supportive. Audits and checks were used to monitor the service and address issues.
“Various checks and audits were in place and were effective in monitoring the quality of the service provision.” from the report
Building condition
minorSome flooring, furnishings and decoration looked tired and needed replacement. The provider had a development plan, but work had been delayed.
“Some areas of the home were looking tired and jaded, some flooring, furnishings and décor were in need of replacement.” from the report
Emergency evacuation equipment
needs fixingEquipment for evacuating people with poor mobility was not easy for staff to reach. The home addressed this immediately and agreed that one evacuation plan needed changing.
“equipment needed for evacuating individuals with poor mobility were not easily accessible to staff where they were most needed.” from the report
Recruitment references
needs fixingThe recruitment records checked contained the required information, but changes to the reference paperwork did not clearly show who had supplied a reference.
“the changes to documentation to apply for references did not ensure clear accountability as to who had supplied the reference” from the report
One person's placement
needs fixingInspectors were concerned that one person's placement was not suitable for their needs. The home had referred the person for reassessment, but suitable alternative accommodation had not been found.
“we did not feel that they were in a suitable environment.” from the report
Complaint information
minorThe complaints procedure was available, but some contact details for other organisations people could complain to were not accurate.
“The complaints procedure included contact details of other bodies people could raise a concern with, this needed to accurately reflect who to complain to.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment work has been completed since the inspection, and what work remains on flooring, furnishings and decoration?
- 02How do you now make sure emergency evacuation equipment is accessible for people with poor mobility?
- 03How do you check that recruitment references are clearly recorded and show who provided them?
- 04What has happened following the reassessment request for the person whose placement inspectors felt was unsuitable?
- 05Have the complaint contacts and procedure been checked and corrected?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 2019 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 Residential Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Elms Residential Care Home →
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 2017.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire East
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.