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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider placed people at the centre of their care and treatment by ensuring their preferences, choices and individual communication needs were understood and respected.

Staff told us how they ensured people were supported to make choices in line with their preferences. For example, one staff said, “[Person] has colours [they] like, so we show clothes and [they] choose what [they] like. Sometimes [family] has clothes ready for [person] but most of the time we show [person] for what [they] like.” Staff also told us how they followed people’s choice if they did not want to go out or complete certain activities on the day.

Relatives also told us how staff ensured they communicated with their family member despite them not verbally communicating. They said, “We have to make a decision for [person] because [they] don’t speak at all. [Staff] keep on speaking to [person] anyway.”

Care plans were person centred and contained important information about people’s families, hobbies and preferences.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Some people using the service required continuity in care from regular staff. We reviewed people’s care records and found they were supported with a consistent staff team. This helped to promote familiarity, build relationships and ensure continuity of care. Where people required a regular routine to reduce anxiety and distress, care records reflected this was delivered in line with their needs and preferences.
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The registered manager told us how they involved people with care planning. They said, “[It] starts from the time we get the referral. With the person’s consent we speak to relevant people. We look at who has lasting power of attorney. [We] always include relatives or health professionals because that informs the care plan and risks and how to mitigate these. We look at [people’s] needs holistically. With NHS continuing healthcare people, theirs are largely health needs but we still look at things they can do to promote independence and choice as much as possible.”

Care plans included information about people’s individual preferences and communication, including the use of gestures, body cues, vocalisations, familiar routines and support from people who knew them well. However, the provider did not consistently demonstrate how information about specific decisions was presented in a format each person could understand, or how practicable steps to support decision-making were applied and recorded when mental capacity assessments were completed.
 

The provider did not consistently ensure people could share feedback, express their views, or raise concerns and complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People's experiences of providing feedback varied. Relatives told us they were not invited to any meetings with the provider but were contacted for feedback each year. However, we did not see evidence of any surveys or questionnaires completed with people and their relatives, and with an option for anonymity. We also did not see evidence that care plans were reviewed with them. This meant there was a potential risk care plans may not reflect people’s changing preferences, and concerns may not be identified early.

Relatives also told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the provider and knew how to contact them.
 

The provider did not consistently make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We found some examples when people experienced feeling unwell or having a fall and the provider did not demonstrate they supported them to access care and treatment without delay. For example, 1 person presented unwell and vomiting. Staff did not demonstrate they followed the guidance in the person’s care plan and contacted the GP or 111 for advice. Another person presented with coughing and discomfort throughout the night and staff did not seek healthcare advice until the person’s relative arrived later in the morning. The person was later taken to hospital by ambulance. This did not demonstrate people were always supported to access treatment when needed.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were supported to regularly access community activities with support from staff. 1 person occasionally experienced distress when travelling with staff. We found the provider had included information in the person’s care plan about how to reduce this anxiety and distress. This meant the person could be supported safely to access the community.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity and were able to describe how they promoted inclusive care, ensuring people were treated with dignity and respect. The service had an equality and diversity policy in place to guide staff in delivering care and support.
 

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes in a way that ensured all relevant information was clearly documented and available to staff.

At the time of our assessment, the provider told us 1 person was receiving end-of-life care. We found evidence that advance care planning and future care preferences had been recorded, including advance statements outlining people's wishes, preferred place of care and family involvement.However, records did not always contain clear, verified information regarding current RESPECT/DNACPR documentation. This created a risk that people's wishes may not be consistently communicated or acted upon and indicated the provider was not always following its policy regarding the documentation and communication of advance decisions.

Staff had received training in end-of-life care.