Elliscombe House

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The management team made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People's needs were assessed before they started using the service to ensure staff understood their needs and preferences. One person said, “They [staff] asked what I need, and I know about the care plan.” Care staff told us care plans gave them the information they needed to support people effectively.

Assessments contained information about people's care needs, care preferences, preferred times of care, any religious or cultural beliefs and their personal relationships. Each of these assessments helped form the person’s care plan.

The management team planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff were aware of the need to involve people in all aspects of their care and ensured they met their assessed needs. Staff understood each person's care needs. Staff told us people's care plans were kept up to date, included their current needs, how these were to be met and desired outcomes. Staff told us they ensured people were supported by other health care professionals when necessary.

Nationally recognised assessment tools had been used to assess people’s needs in relation to eating and drinking. People’s meals were prepared in accordance with their needs, including people who required food to be served at a specific consistency. These meals were very well presented.

People had mixed views about the food served in the home. This ranged from “The food is excellent” to “The food varies.” One person told us, “The chefs are all trying to please, they work hard and are obliging. They come up to see you and ask for suggestions.” The chef had a very good knowledge of people’s dietary preferences and specialist nutritional needs.

Some people received support with their meals and drinks. Generally support was good. However, at times there was limited social interaction between people and some staff members. We saw 1 member of staff swapped with another member of staff halfway through supporting 1 person with their meal. This was raised with the registered manager as an area which could be improved upon. This was accepted and had been improved upon before our third visit to the home.

The management team worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

A member of the management team completed an assessment prior to people being offered care to ensure they could meet the person's needs safely and effectively. If a decision was reached to offer support, a care plan and risk assessments were developed, put in place and a moving in date agreed.

Staff worked closely with the person, their family members and other care professionals to ensure people received safe and effective care and good practice guidelines were followed.

Staff told us teamwork had improved and was generally good. Many new staff had been recruited, so teamwork was still being developed. One staff member said, “This is a new team, but feels supportive."

The management team supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff said they encouraged people to be as independent as possible. People had varying levels of needs and abilities. One person told us, “I want some independence. I walk up and down the corridors to get my exercise and some level of movement.” There were regular activities based around gentle exercise and movement to support people’s mental and physical health and mobility.

Staff liaised with external health and social care professionals to ensure people received consistent care and support.

The management team did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People told us in general care had improved since our last assessment. One person said, “The quality of care has improved since the new manager took over.” However, further improvements were needed to ensure consistently positive outcomes for people. For example, people either at risk of or those who had pressure damage to their skin needed staff to reposition them at set intervals. This was not being done consistently. This lack of repositioning could increase pain for people and/or prevent recovery/improvement.

Records were in place to monitor people’s care needs were being met. The auditing of these records needed to be improved so issues such as repositioning were identified and resolved quickly. These issues were discussed with the home’s clinical lead nurse who will ensure this was improved. An improvement plan had been put in place before our third visit to the home. This showed these issues would be resolved promptly.

The management team told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People and their relatives said people’s rights were respected and staff always sought consent before providing any care. One person told us they did not want to share their care plan with any family members and this choice had been respected. We saw people were asked if they wished to be assisted. For example, at lunch time a member of staff politely asked a person if they could help them. The person said, “No thank you” and this was respected.

There were systems in place to ensure people consented to their care, if they had capacity to do so, and to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were followed when people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care. Details of others involved in people's care, who could support with decision making or advocate on their behalf, were included in people’s care records. Records showed the right people were consulted when a decision needed to be made for an individual who lacked capacity to make the decision themselves.