Archived: Eliot Gardens

People who were living in Eliot Gardens were identified as person supported, we have therefore used this term throughout this report. There were 35 people supported, living in the service. Not everyone received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection there were 18 people in receipt of a regulated activity. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people's personal care service.

Eliot Gardens consists of 35 ground floor apartments ranging in size from studios, to one or two bedrooms each with their own bathroom and kitchenette. There were five units each consisting of a lounge area with seven apartments adjacent to each one. Each unit had a small kitchen which people could use if they wished to prepare their own meals. There was a communal dining area, laundry facilities and accessible bathrooms. There were large accessible secure gardens.

There was a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Without exception, people living in Eliot Gardens and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place and had been followed which ensured people were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about what might indicate a person was experiencing harm or abuse.

The amount of support people needed was commissioned on an individual basis staffing levels fluctuated according to the level of need people had. Supported people and staff felt there was enough time to provide safe levels of support.

The staff team supported people to manage the risks in their daily lives in exceptional ways which had empowered them to achieve their goals and increase their independence through the use of positive risk taking strategies.

The service had robust recruitment practices in place. All staff had been newly appointed following the service registering in December 2017. We found all necessary documentation was in place.

Medicines had been managed safely. There was a medicines champion who provided additional guidance and support.

Infection control policies and procedures were in place. Staff were observed to use gloves and aprons when supporting people with personal care.

Accidents and incidents had been recorded and we saw how the service investigated each event to establish the cause and avoid reoccurrence.

The building was very well maintained and decorated and furnished to a high standard.

The service supported people to develop their own personal emergency evacuation plans, (PEEPS). These provided specific information about the support the person would need to evacuate, for example, in a fire.

People and their relatives had been involved in the initial assessments of their needs and preferences prior to moving in to the service. Assessments were thorough and addressed all areas of the person's health and social care needs. Other professionals input had also been included.

The service were working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). People were supported to make decisions about their care staff ensured people had consented to care and support.

Staff received comprehensive training which ensured they had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively. Supported people and their relatives praised the skills of the staff team and identified how they had achieved exceptional outcomes for their relatives.

People had been supported to maintain their nutritional needs. At the time of this inspection there was no one who needed a modified diet.

Wi fi was available throughout the building. The service were using technology to enhance people's support and increase their independence.

The service had been innovative in it's approach to supporting people to live healthier lives. They had addressed this holistically by understanding how people's lifestyles and feelings had impacted on their health and wellbeing. This had resulted in positive outcomes for people.

People's emotional needs had been carefully considered as part of their holistic assessment and care plan. The service saw supporting people emotionally as an essential part of their role. By supporting people to build their confidence we could see evidence of people becoming more independent and more confident.

Everyone we spoke with praised the kindness and the caring support provided by the staff. We observed staff throughout the inspection and saw they were polite and respectful to the people living in the service and to each other. Visiting professionals had also praised the calm and caring atmosphere in the service.

People had been fully involved in making decisions about their care and support. Staff understood the importance of maintaining people's dignity and respect. People we spoke with said staff followed their wishes. One of the relatives we spoke with told us the staff really went the extra mile and were extremely caring.

The service had developed an activities programme in response to people's interests and wishes. People who lived in the service were encouraged to share their skills and were organising and leading activities which they had been interested in prior to moving into the service.

People's care plans were exceptionally person centred and responsive to their needs. A visiting professional told us the staff really knew every one very well and this had resulted in very positive outcomes. Care plans were reviewed and updated at regular intervals. We saw people had been referred to other professionals when required.

Compliments had been shared with staff in team meetings and through a secure internal social media platform. In addition supported people and staff were nominated internally for awards which celebrated their achievements.

Information about how to complain was displayed in the communal areas and included in the service user guide. Everyone we spoke with said they had nothing to complain about and could not identify anything that could be improved.

The home was exceptionally well led. People supported, their relatives and staff praised the management and leadership. They identified the innovative and positive impact they had on the service and the significant improvements that had been achieved.

Effective governance systems ensured the registered manager had clear oversight of the service. Regular audits had been completed and action plans developed which ensured any identified concerns had been addressed.

The home continued to work in partnership with several organisations and attended forums where knowledge and experience were shared. There were clear examples of these partnerships resulting in positive outcomes for supported people.