Elmsdene Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the service remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service organised monthly resident’s meetings and issues such as activities, food choices and wider care was discussed. Family members were invited also. People and relatives told us they were involved in their care plan and reviews.

We saw a person-centred care policy, and records were documented in a person-centred way.

Managers said that support was flexible and tailored, and where appropriate support levels could be increased or reduced. Staff rotas were managed so that care was consistent and continuous, but also changes could be made when needed.

Partners had positive feedback about the service and said that the service worked well with wider agencies.

The service's processes made sure that managers and staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We saw a communication policy, and this was accounted for in people’s care plans and updated regularly. We observed staff communicating appropriate to people’s needs.

Information could be adapted to meet individual requirements.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was an appropriate complaints policy and people and relatives knew how to raise concerns. The manager collated concerns and complaints, reviewed them, and responded effectively and in a timely manner. People and relatives had opportunities to feedback through surveys and meetings.

We found that people could access support that was right to them, at the time they needed it. Staff were committed to being flexible and adaptable to meet people's needs.

There were regular handovers and staff continuously engaged with people and their care needs. Processes supported equity in access. Information about care provision could be provided in accessible ways, and was tailored to the different needs of people and the local community.

Processes aimed to make sure the service was tailored to reduce barriers to care. For example, support plans were updated to consider communication barriers, and how best to communicate with people effectively.

We did not note any concerns with local people experiencing any inequality in accessing the care available.

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.

Although the service was not currently caring for anyone who was at the end of their lives, staff completed relevant training, and further training could be arranged.

There was an end-of-life care policy, and people’s wishes around end of life care were considered and noted in care plans.