The Elms Care Home

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 9 and 10 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People received care in a safe environment from staff who understood safeguarding and were confident to raise concerns. Risks were assessed, reviewed and managed in a way that reflected people's individual needs and preferences. There were enough staff to support people safely and recruitment processes helped ensure staff were suitable for their roles. One relative said, "Couldn't speak highly enough of the care. The staff are excellent and [my family member] feels safe because it is a stable team that know them really well and they appear comfortable with them."

Medicines were managed safely overall, with appropriate guidance, checks and monitoring in place. A small number of recording and monitoring issues were identified during the inspection; however, the registered manager took immediate action to address these.

The environment was generally clean and safe, with health and safety checks completed regularly. Some areas showed signs of wear and ongoing improvements and refurbishment works were underway. The registered manager and provider had plans and works were underway. A relative said, "The building needs a bit of 'TLC' but we can overlook this due to the high level of care."

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the service and detailed care plans supported staff to provide effective care. Staff received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal and understood people's health, dietary and communication needs. Recognised assessment tools were used to monitor health and identify changes at an early stage, with referrals made promptly to healthcare professionals when required. One relative told us, "The staff noticed [my family member] wasn't drinking but in conversation learnt they liked a shandy, they brought them one within about 30 minutes and [my family member] drank the lot. It is the little things that are so important and they always remember exactly how [my family member] likes to be cared for."

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. However, some mental capacity assessments and best interest records would benefit from more detail about how people were supported to understand decisions and express their views.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the caring approach of staff. People told us staff regularly checked on their wellbeing, took time to talk with them and understood their needs. They said staff, "Were nice" And "I love living here." Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and supported them to maintain their independence. People were involved in decisions about their care and, where appropriate, relatives were kept informed and involved in planning and reviews. A relative told us, "Staff are very dedicated and always there to answer any questions."

Staff knew people well, including their life histories, preferences and interests, which helped them provide personalised care and support. People were encouraged to take part in activities that reflected their interests and were supported to make choices about their daily lives. Care plans were reviewed regularly with people and their relatives where appropriate. People's views were actively sought through reviews, meetings, surveys and discussions, and feedback was used to drive improvements. People knew how to raise concerns or complaints and felt confident they would be listened to. A relative told us, "[Staff] keep us informed if anything occurs that we need to know about." Another relative said, “If [staff] don’t know the answer to a question, they would find someone to answer my question."

The service was led by a registered manager who promoted an open, positive and learning culture. Incidents, accidents and near misses were reviewed to identify learning, improve practice and reduce future risks. Staff understood the provider's values, worked well together and spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Relatives spoke well of the registered manager. One relative said, "The [registered] manager is also brilliant." Governance systems provided oversight of the quality and safety of the service. While some issues identified during the inspection had not always been identified through existing audits, the management team acted promptly to address concerns and demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement.