Elite Support Providers Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Pre-assessments were not sufficiently robust to help ensure that staff could meet people’s needs. This meant that some people did not receive the care they should expect when they moved into the supported living service. Staff worked well with external agencies and professionals to support with people’s care. They received relevant training and advice through these links which staff felt benefitted them. Staff helped people remain well through their knowledge of people’s individual requirements, such as the food they could or could not eat. Staff supported people to attend health appointments and professionals reviewed people’s medicines to help ensure they were still required. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and they understood the principles of the Act should someone not have capacity to make their own decisions.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Some people had had a bad experience as part of transferring between services. One person had recently moved into the supported living service, but their move had been poorly planned. This had resulted in heightened anxiety and distress for the person.

The provider and staff recognised that an assessment for one person could have been more robust. They told us, “It was quite a quick decision. We were getting things ready, then we were told he was moving in. We spent the first week building trust. He is non-verbal, so we had to get information from the family to get to know what he responded to.” They added, “The staff are committed to caring for [person’s name] but it is not the right environment.”

The registered manager had a process whereby they assessed someone’s needs prior to them receiving a care package from them. This generally worked well, however in the case of someone who had moved into the supported living setting, the registered manager’s pre-assessment was sparse. It did not include an insight into one person’s communication, anxieties, preferences or sensory needs. This was not in line with the provider’s autism policy which stated a fully assessment of a person’s physical, psychological and social wellbeing would take place.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People had support from a wide range of professionals to support them with their care needs. One person had weekly input from a professional to help develop their day-to-day skills. A relative told us how staff took their family member to college each day.

Staff welcomed external support. They told us they had received training from the mental health team as well as support from other professionals. This was particularly in relation to one person who had moved into the supported living setting. A staff member told us, “We are going sensory training and there is an occupational therapist session next week.” Staff were working with the occupational therapist in relation to one person. A staff member told us, “[Person’s name] uses a seat belt, but the occupational therapist said we need to order a harness. She is going to show us which one when she comes.”

Professionals worked with staff to help ensure they were provided with relevant training. A professional told us they visited the supported living service once or twice a week to provide training around developing strategies. They told us, “When [person’s name] first moved in I asked the registered manager if they would like my support. They told us at the time they could meet his needs and they just wanted him to settle in. I then offered to deliver positive behaviour support (PBS) training to give staff an overview.” They added, “During PBS training, staff’s understanding was good.”

The registered manager had good links with external agencies and used these links to obtain professional support when needed. Although the transition for one person into the supported living setting was not planned well and although the registered manager had prepared for their arrival, without the transition period, this meant the person received care from a team who had little experience and no qualifications in meeting this person’s needs.

People were provided with food which helped them maintain a healthy diet. Staff also ensured people received the medication they needed and supported people to have their medicines reviewed or attend medical appointments. A relative told us, “I am happy as long as he is safe, eating well and his culture is respected.”

Staff could identify when people were unwell or in pain. A staff member told us, “[Person’s name] digestive system is quite good and he needs enough water and fruit.” We found people did not have as required medicine protocols in place which would help staff provide appropriate medicines when people were in pain. Following our inspection, the registered manager sent these over to us. Professionals said staff were trying to provide care to people which helped maintain their wellbeing. However, a professional added, “[Person’s name] needs a big environment with a lot of space and a garden. This (supported living) setting is not equipped. There is no outdoor space.”

Professionals told us they had arranged a medicines review for one person. In addition, a range of external professionals were involved in one person's care to help ensure they stayed well.

People had care plans which recorded individualised information about them. This included health information and ways in which staff could help keep people healthy as well as their food preferences. Staff knew this guidance, for example, staff knew that one person, for religious reasons, could only eat a specific type of meat.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We could not collect the evidence to score this evidence category as we were unable to speak with people. However, we heard from staff that people were supported to make their own decisions around the food they ate, and a relative confirmed this.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. A staff member told us, “If they (people) have capacity, they will understand. [Person’s name] does not have capacity.” A second said, “If you do not have mental capacity and cannot do things alone, like look after your money, you have to have somebody in charge of this. The doctor may have some say and the family engage too.”

People who received care either had capacity or had the necessary legal arrangements in place so someone else could make decisions on their behalf. Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which helped ensure they understood the principles of the Act and could put this training into practice.