Elm Park Care Home

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider shared concerns about safety quickly and appropriately. Clear safeguarding processes were in place and key information about how to report concerns about care and support were displayed throughout the care environment. The provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to review people’s capacity and understanding around receiving care and support. The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. The care environment was well-maintained, and environmental risks were monitored and managed safely. Regular safety checks on equipment were completed to ensure the environment remained safe for people, members of staff and visitors. The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Administration of medicines was managed safely. Systems and processes were in place to monitor, review and audit how people received their medicines.

People's needs were assessed appropriately, and regular reviews of their care needs took place. People were supported to eat healthily and maintain their fluid intake and hydration. The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing assessments of need when people moved between different services. The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were treated as individuals, and their care routines were specific to them in line with their choices and preferences. We observed people were supported to make choices and maintain their independence. The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People had access to outside space and garden areas which were well maintained and attractive with a good range of seating and shade. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. Feedback from local health and care professionals was positive and demonstrated a proactive approach to developing positive working relationships.