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 remained good.
This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 had systems intended to support person-centred care, including individual communication and support profiles, Positive Behaviour Support plans, key-working, progress monitoring, activity records and feedback processes. These records included information about people’s family relationships, interests, routines, communication and preferences. Most staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and were observed providing appropriate care.

However, people were not always assured that these person-centred systems were supported by accurate, current and consistent care information. We received mixed feedback from relatives about involvement in care planning and formal reviews. Some care records contained conflicting or unclear information and did not consistently reflect people’s current needs. This included conflicting information relating to specific clinical risks, such as dysphagia. This reduced staff’s ability to consistently follow clear guidance and placed people at potential risk of receiving support that did not fully reflect their assessed needs.

While the wider evidence demonstrated personalised communication, choice, interests and involvement, these arrangements were not consistently supported by reliable and up-to-date records.
 

The provider did not always work effectively with other services to ensure people's care was coordinated and information about their needs was shared appropriately.

Where people were administered PRN medicines regularly, the provider did not demonstrate they always worked with healthcare professionals to review people’s medicines and needs without delay. We found important information about people’s needs was not always shared with local services people used. For example, 1 person using the service also attended college. While college staff were aware of the person’s condition, there were opportunities to strengthen the transfer of formal documentation and supporting risk information to ensure all external services had immediate access to comprehensive guidance.

Relatives told us they felt there was continuity in care for their family member. One relative said, “There is consistency of staff which is good as my [relative] [has] got to know them well.”

At the time of our visit, we observed the GP was completing a home visit for 1 person.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We found 1 person had an easy-to-read format in place for their personal emergency evacuation plan. Care plans contained information about how people preferred to communicate, including use of Makaton or PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System. These are unique language programmes combining signs, symbols, and speech to help people with learning or communication difficulties express themselves.

Staff told us how they used their training in Makaton to support people with tasks. One person said, “Makaton and Now and Next Chart…[we] show them the morning chart with little signs. Breakfast and morning time, school time, also with eye contact and gestures with the now and next cards as well.”
 

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The registered manager told us relatives were able to share feedback with the service. They said, “[We] [invite] people from outside, families know they can come by and they will feedback to me or the site manager if they are unhappy about something. That allows the culture to not become closed.”Relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns to the service. One relative said, “I am very vocal and want the best quality of care for my [family member] so if there are any issues no matter how small I will discuss the matter with the manager immediately.”
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The registered manager told us about their on-call system to support people to access support out of hours. They said, “[Staff] have an on-call system so they always have a manager they can get hold of.”
The registered manager also told us how they supported people to access services which were important to them. They said, “Like with the local mosque and community centre, we make contact with them and support the person to integrate into the community, so they are not just living indoors.”
People were supported by their families to access healthcare services such as the GP, dentist and chiropodist when required. We found staff also supported people to access additional services in the community such as colleges.
 

Staff and leaders did not always demonstrate that they had consistently identified and responded to people’s individual needs to promote equitable experiences and outcomes. This meant some people were at risk of not experiencing equitable care and outcomes.

We found that Mental Capacity Act, Best Interests and legal processes had been used for some people whose care arrangements included restrictions. However, these arrangements were not consistently cross-referenced or embedded within the provider’s own records and oversight systems. Some restrictions required clearer decision-specific recording, consideration of the person’s wishes and potential objection, review of their cumulative effect, and confirmation that they remained necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive option. We therefore did not have sufficient assurance that the provider consistently identified, monitored and reviewed all restrictions or their impact on people’s rights and equity of experience. Further work was needed to ensure these processes were consistently applied and to promote people’s rights.

An equality and diversity policy was in place, and staff received equality and diversity training. People were supported to access healthcare and community resources relevant to them. This demonstrated awareness of some of the barriers people may experience, but did not fully address the concerns about the identification, monitoring and review of restrictive practices.
 

The provider had some systems in place to support future planning.

We found people had health action plans in place to support goal planning in line with their needs and conditions, and staff had received end-of-life care training. Whilst additional evidence demonstrated that advance decision and future care documentation was in place, this information was not consistently reflected within people's main care records.