Elite Support Providers Ltd

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

People did not always receive care in line with the right support, right care, right culture guidance. Although staff had received training in this guidance, people did not always have the opportunities they should have to help them live independent lives with good access to local communities. The lack of person-centred, individualised care was a breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Information for people was provided, where possible, in easy-read format which helped people understand and staff were learning a form of sign language to help them communicate with people. Some people did receive person-centred care and relatives told us they were happy with the support their family member was getting from staff. The registered manager kept a complaints log and responded to complaints when received. We also read they had received compliments in the past

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s experiences were mixed in relation to the person-centred care they were receiving. A relative told us they felt their family member was not in a suitable place and staff were not providing the care that they needed. They had raised concerns about this with the person’s social worker and other professionals. However, we heard from a relative that they felt their family member did have a good experience as staff supported this person to attend college daily. They also said their family member had developed strong bonds with some staff.

Staff were getting to know people’s needs, especially with people who they had recently started providing the care to. A staff member said, “We have proper instructions now from the manager. We offer [person’s name] juice and crisps to help him calm down.” They added, “[Person’s name] understands colours very well and sensory toys. He loves water too.” However, a professional said, “The problem is there was no transition, no time to plan. Staff haven’t got the right experience. We need to find places for him to go where he has space.”

We did not get much opportunity to observe people’s care as one person was out all day and the other person was in their room for the majority of the time we were at the service. We were unable to visit this person in their room due to potentially increasing their anxiety. Some people’s care plans had not been reviewed as regularly as they could have been to help ensure staff were provided with the most up to date information. One person’s was written in December 2023. It was a care plan that recorded what staff planned to do to ensure they provided appropriate care, rather than what they will do. It was not clear what information was used to develop the care plan but there was little specific information about the person which would support the staff working with them. Staff did not always follow professionals advice to help ensure people had a good experience. A professional told us, “I’ve asked for some music to be on. They (staff) did do this for a couple of my visits, but I’ve noticed it’s gone quiet again.” The environment people lived in was not always suitable for their needs. One person’s care plan recorded they enjoyed the garden and water play. Yet, where they lived did not have a back garden or an appropriate space to enable them to do this. Their care plan also recorded they went to a club every weekend for four hours. Daily notes for this person showed no evidence of staff supporting them to do this. Staff were not always following guidance in people’s care plans. One person’s said they should be checked every 20 minutes during the night and staff should use an audio monitor. Yet, staff told us they checked this person once an hour and they did not use a monitor as they slept in the room next door to them so would hear them.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The registered manager had developed easy-read tenancy agreements for people and staff put together easy-read weekly planners so people could easily understand what they were going to be doing during the week. Relative’s felt staff knew people. A relative told us, “The difficult part is to understand what he wants. He is non-verbal. But [staff name] understands him well and is passing this to the other staff.”

Staff used different ways of communicating with people. They told us, “We have to respect their views and everything and what they need. We have to support them. We are trying our best to communicate with people in a way they understand” and, “[Manager’s name] is teaching us basic Makaton (a form of sign language). [Person’s name] is still trying to understand basic signs. He uses his own signs.” They added, “We give him options and he will respond to it. For [person’s name] he will take your hand and lead you to it (what they want).” Staff were learning how to recognise signs from people. A staff member told us, “If he accepts his clothes, that means he wants to go out. He can also make a sign to go back, so now we understand.”

The providers autism policy stated that people should be offered information in a format that was easily accessible and understandable to the person. Although the registered provider had produced easy-read tenancy agreements, these did not include information informing people they were able to use whichever care provider they wished. We also found that people's care plans were not written in a format that could be understood by them or enable them to contribute to. The service had a complaints policy, although this was not in easy-read format. We saw the manager responded to any complaints received however, and we read compliments received by the service in relation to how they were looking after one person.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Some people did not always have a good experience and this was a concern of professionals. One professional told us, “This home is not equipped for him, there is no outdoor space for him to go. If the environment was right, I think we’d see improvements.” Some relatives who told us they felt their family member had good experiences and outcomes from the care provided by staff. A relative told us, “I don’t have any concerns because I visit regularly.” Yet, other’s felt their family member was not in a suitable setting and they were not receiving the care they required.

Some people had support from external professionals to enable them to participate in additional activities and to help them learn daily living skills. A staff member said, “We had help from [professional’s name] and the family. We were taking notes and discussing things and having meetings all the time to help us provide the right care and understand [person’s name].”

Although there was information in people’s care plans in relation to how staff should respond to people, this was not always detailed enough. Daily records for one person showed periods of shouting, aggression towards staff and property destruction on a daily basis. There was very little detail regarding how staff responded to this. Terms used when describing their responses to aggression towards staff included trying to ‘calm the person down’, ‘control them’ and ‘skillfully calming them’. But none of these described how they did these things or what interventions were used. There was no indication that this person’s day was planned with them and how they were informed what would be happening, despite it being important that this person required a structured day. People were not always supported in line with information in their care plan. One person’s stated they loved to be involved in cooking and could support with cleaning, but this was not the description that we were given of the person. Staff prepared all of their meals and there was no indication of them helping with the cleaning. Information was very generic in relation to some people and did not describe what we had been told about the person. We found the provider had not carried out risk assessments in relation to one person to record why they were unable to support this person to live life to the full. For example, this person was recorded as enjoying a garden, helping with preparing meals as well as housework. At present, staff were focused on learning about this person and managing incidents and accidents and as such they were unable to support this person to participate in any activities related to daily living skills. In addition, the referral and admission of this person was inappropriate as the service did not have a back garden. It was clear in information we read that this was important to this person as they needed open space.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.