Elstree View Care Home

Elstree View Care Home is a residential care home. The home can provide care for up to 81 people. At the time of our inspection there were 48 people living at the home. The care home was arranged over three floors. One of the floors specialises in providing care to people living with dementia and this unit is called the reminiscence floor.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they were happy with the care they received. Overall risks to people were identified and managed. We did identify one area for improvement regarding supporting people on outings. We made a recommendation to the provider about this. Medicines were managed safely. The provider had good systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff worked effectively within their infection control policy and were very proud of the high standards of cleanliness across the home.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. People were supported to eat healthy food and they were involved in the planning of the menus, which were seasonal. Staff supported people to attend their medical appointments and healthcare professionals hosted satellite surgeries at the home if required.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff were safely recruited in line with best practice and there were enough staff to care for people. Staff received a detailed induction and they had the necessary training to care for people.

The culture of the home was one that placed the needs of people first. Staff were individually caring, and respected people’s dignity and privacy and people were supported to stay independent.

Care plans reflected what was important to people. People's views were sought and recorded on their care and their future wishes. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure that they met people's needs. Communal spaces and activities were used to ensure a sense of community and protect people from the risk of isolation. The activities were chosen based on people’s hobbies and interests.

The registered manager completed regular checks and audits on the quality of the service and acted if they observed any shortfalls. There was effective communication between all departments in the home which meant staff felt they had the necessary support to carry out their roles.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for Signature at Elstree Home under the previous provider at the same premises was good (published 09 January 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Signature at Elstree on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Recommendations

We made a recommendation to the provider to review how risk’s were assessed and planned for.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider was following the current Government National Guidance regarding care home visiting. People had three named visitors and an essential care giver, which was documented in their care plans. Information was available for visitors to follow. Visitors were supported to test for COVID 19 prior to entering the home and instructed how to use PPE (Personal Protective Equipment).

The home had a safe visiting room, which visitors entered through an external door. Where visitors and people living in the home were separated by a large glass screen and able to communicate through an intercom system. In addition, the home’s garden facilitated socially distanced outdoor visits for friends and relatives.

The layout of the home and communal areas supported social distancing. The premises looked clean and hygienic throughout. There were extensive cleaning schedules in place throughout the day and adequate ventilation.

The home had sufficient supplies of personal PPE. PPE stations were positioned throughout the premises and by the bedroom doors of any residents isolating. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and how to don and doff PPE.

People who carried out activities outside of the home had risk assessments in place and staff provided hand sanitiser and masks.

The staff were aware of who to contact should they have an outbreak of COVID 19 and the protocols to follow.

The manager explained the home ensured residents were tested for COVID-19 prior to admission to the home and if appropriate supported them to isolate in their rooms.

Policies and audits relating to infection prevention and control (IPC), including coronavirus, were up to date.

Sunrise of Elstree provides accommodation for up to 81 older people some of whom live with dementia. The home is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of the inspection there were 74 people living there.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was well known throughout the home and proactive in their approach. At the service the registered manager uses the title Assisted Living Coordinator.

There were systems in place that monitored the quality of the service, resolved issues and strived for continuous improvement. Staff felt engaged and empowered working at the service. We found the ethos in the service was ‘People first’. We found there were very few complaints but these were responded to appropriately.

People received personalised care that met their needs and respected their preferences. Care plans gave staff clear guidance and staff followed these plans. People enjoyed activities that reflected their hobbies, interests and lives. People were supported with care and kindness at the end of their life.

People were supported by staff who knew how to promote safety and recognise abuse. Individual risks were assessed but these did not stop people living a full life. People’s medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff who were recruited through a robust process. We also found that infection control was well managed.

People were supported by staff who were trained and supported. People were given choice and supported in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

People enjoyed a variety of food, a pleasant dining experience and their nutritional needs were met.

People had regular access to health care professionals. We found that the design and layout of the building met people’s needs and promoted dignity. The service refers to the units in the home as neighbourhoods and the unit managers as Neighbourhood Coordinators. However, throughout this report we refer to the different areas as units and unit managers.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness and were involved in decisions about their care. People told us that they made friendships and felt happy at the service.

Confidentiality was promoted through the management of records and how staff spoke with people.