Archived: Elliott Residential Care Home

Updated 19 January 2015

Before our inspection we reviewed all the information we had about the provider. We looked at and reviewed the provider’s information return. This is information we asked the provider to send us about how they made the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. We also reviewed statutory notifications the provider sent to us. Statutory notifications are reports that a provider has a legal responsibility to send to us. These include reports of incidents that involve people who use the service, for example serious injuries and incidents that involve the police.

We visited the home on 14 July 2014. The inspection was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by a single inspector.  We spoke with four of the 15 people who used the service at the time of the inspection. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, staff and a social worker who visited the home on the day of our inspection. We observed how staff interacted with people. We looked at four people’s care records, staff training records and records about how the home was managed.

Updated 19 January 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

Our last inspection took place on 20 May 2013. We found then that the provider met the essential standards of quality and safety.

Elliott Residential Care Home provides accommodation for up to 17 people with learning disabilities and mental health conditions.  There were 15 people using the service at the time of our inspection. The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People who used the service spoke positively about their experience of the service. Our own observations and the information in care records showed that people had been cared for and supported in line with their agreed care plans.  

Staff had received appropriate and relevant training to be able to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staffing levels were determined by the dependency levels and care needs of people who used the service. Enough staff were on duty to meet the needs of people.

Senior staff understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This is legislation that protects vulnerable people who are not able to make decisions for themselves and who are or may become deprived of their liberty through the use of restraint, restriction of movement and control. No DoLS had been authorised but the provider was in the process of considering whether to make an application for a person who used the service. Staff understood how to recognise and respond to signs that people were at risk of abuse.

People’s care needs had been assessed. People’s care had been planned and delivered in line with their care plan.  Care plans we looked at had clearly stated aims and objectives. People wanted to be supported to be as independent as possible and to progress towards living in their own accommodation in a supported living setting. People’s progress towards what they wanted to achieve had been monitored. Staff had helped people achieve their aims and had supported them to move to supported living services when they were ready.

People told us that their privacy and dignity had been respected. People made positive comments about staff. Care routines took account of people’s preferences. Activities at the home took account of people’s hobbies and interests. People were supported to be as independent as possible both in the home and in the community.

The registered manager and staff knew and understood the individual needs of people who used the service.  

People who used the service were involved in developing the service. People had been encouraged to make suggestions about facilities and activities at the home which had been acted upon.

The registered manager was available to staff and social services and other professionals who visited the service. The registered manager understood our registration requirements.

The provider had effective processes for monitoring the quality of service.