Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at The Elms Residential Care Home

Goodpublished 13 November 2024, 22 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks, medicines records and management checks were not always reliable.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 January 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, observed care and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.

The home had identified people's health risks, but staff did not always know about them or follow the care plans. Records did not consistently show that people had enough to drink, were repositioned to prevent skin damage or received topical medicines as prescribed. There were also concerns about checks on agency staff and some infection control guidance.

Management and quality checks were not effective enough to find and correct these problems. There had been recent changes in managers and senior staff, and there was no registered manager at the inspection. The home breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance.

People and most relatives were happy with the care and said staff were kind and kept them informed. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The other key questions were not inspected at this visit and their earlier ratings were used for the overall rating.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    People told inspectors they felt safe and staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns.

    “People told us they felt safe living at The Elms.” from the report
  • Open communication

    Relatives said they were kept informed about accidents, incidents and changes in their family member's health.

    “Relatives told us they were kept well informed about any accidents or incidents or changes in people's health.” from the report
  • Working with health professionals

    Relatives and visiting healthcare professionals told inspectors that staff worked with other professionals to improve people's outcomes.

    “Relatives told us staff worked with other healthcare professionals to improve outcomes for people.” from the report
  • Secure medicine storage

    Although medicine records had problems, inspectors found that medicines were stored securely and safely.

    “Medicines were stored securely and safely.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Risks were not consistently managed

    serious

    Some staff did not know about people's health risks or how often they needed repositioning. Records had large gaps, creating a risk of avoidable harm.

    “There were large gaps in records to demonstrate people at risk of skin damage had been repositioned to alleviate pressure on vulnerable areas in accordance with their risk management plans.” from the report
  • Medicine records were incomplete

    serious

    Records did not show that topical medicines were always applied as prescribed. Guidance for some medicines given when needed was also limited.

    “Records did not evidence people's topical medicines had been applied in accordance with the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
  • Agency staff checks

    serious

    The home did not have the required agency staff profiles and photographic identification before staff worked at the home. It could not be assured that some agency workers had suitable training or employment checks.

    “This meant the provider could not be assured agency staff had received basic training or had Disclosure and Barring Service checks to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable people.” from the report
  • Weak management oversight

    serious

    Quality systems failed to identify several safety and recording problems. There was no registered manager at the inspection after recent departures of senior staff.

    “Governance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service were ineffective.” from the report
  • Infection guidance was unclear

    needs fixing

    Some staff did not follow the mask policy, and the infection control policy contained contradictory advice.

    “The provider's policy had been updated following recent changes in government and local health teams guidance. However, the policy was not clear and contained contradictory advice for staff.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now make sure every staff member knows my relative's risks, including diabetes, skin damage and repositioning needs?
  2. 02How do you record and check that topical medicines and medicines given when needed are administered correctly?
  3. 03What checks are completed before agency staff start work, including identity, training and Disclosure and Barring Service checks?
  4. 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and when will the management vacancies be filled?
  5. 05What action has been completed in response to the legionella risk assessment, and what remains outstanding?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings were not inspected and earlier ratings were used for the overall rating. 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2019

Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but management checks and some regulatory notifications needed improvement.

The inspection took place on 6 and 12 November 2019. One visit was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people, visitors, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were described as safe, well supported and treated with dignity. Staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, food and drink needs were supported, and people took part in activities that interested them.

Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The manager had not sent the CQC four required notifications about restrictions on people's liberty. Some management checks had also failed to identify gaps in risk assessments. The manager acted after the inspection and provided evidence of improvements.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    People said they received safe care. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and recruitment included background checks.

    “The carers do whatever they can to help. You feel you are in safe hands.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors saw caring interactions. Staff respected people's privacy and encouraged independence and everyday choices.

    “There were caring interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
  • Skilled staff

    Staff had induction, supervision and training suited to people's needs, including dementia awareness and specialist support.

    “Staff were skilled, competent and suitably trained to meet people's needs effectively.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Required notifications were missed

    needs fixing

    The manager had not told the CQC about the outcomes of four renewal applications concerning restrictions on people's liberty. The notifications were sent immediately after the inspection.

    “However, they had not sent us statutory notifications as required, to advise us of the outcomes of four renewal applications made in 2018.” from the report
  • Some checks did not find risks

    needs fixing

    Management checks had not identified gaps in some people's risk assessments. The manager took action to update care plans after the inspection.

    “However, some checks were not effective because they had not identified issues we found during our inspection visit.” from the report
  • Hot radiators

    needs fixing

    Radiators in some communal areas were very hot to touch. Managers said improvements would be made to protect people's safety.

    “Radiators in some communal areas were very hot to touch.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now check that every person's risk assessment is complete and up to date?
  2. 02What systems are in place to make sure all required statutory notifications are sent to the CQC on time?
  3. 03Have the very hot radiators in communal areas been made safe, and how was this checked?
  4. 04How will you monitor the improvement from Requires Improvement for well-led?
  5. 05How do you record and review people's equality, diversity and protected-characteristic needs?

This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions; all ratings were assessed, with well-led changing from Good to Requires Improvement since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of The Elms Residential Care Home

4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at The Elms Residential Care Home →

  2. December 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at The Elms Residential Care Home →

  3. May 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. February 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. December 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. March 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warwickshire

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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
Caroline C., about Mary K.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
Brian G., about Chris M.
See live-in carers near WarwickshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.