The inspection of Elite Care Services was carried out by an inspector who gathered evidence to help us answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive to people's needs? Is the service well-led?Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.
Is the service safe?
We found that people's needs had been appropriately assessed before care was commenced. We saw that their needs were regularly reassessed to ensure they received safe care. We looked at four care records and found that there was sufficient detail to ensure that risk assessments were effective and that staff understood how they could minimise risk while ensuring people's independence was maintained. This meant that staff had the information they needed to minimise identified risks to people's safety and welfare.
All of the four family members we spoke with told us the care staff treated their relative well and did what was expected of them. Information obtained from recent feedback questionnaires stated that, 'I have found the carers to be sensitive, thoughtful and efficient in their care.' One relative told us, 'They support him really well and he is able to enjoy a good quality of life.'
There were sufficient numbers of experienced and competent staff on duty to safely meet people's personal and health care needs. We saw that staff had been appropriately trained and received effective support from managers so that they could undertake their roles safely. The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's care and support needs.
Staff had received training in the protection of vulnerable adults and the staff that we spoke with knew how to report concerns. We saw evidence that incidents or accidents had been appropriately reported to the Local Authority and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This meant that people were protected from the risk of neglect or unsafe care.
Suitable arrangements were in place to respond to emergencies, with the manager or provider always being available 'on call' to support staff to manage issues safely, and in a timely way. The registered manager told us, 'We are always there to help out, no matter when.'
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs had been assessed and care plans were in place. There was evidence that people had been involved in planning and agreeing their care, and the care plans provided staff with enough detail to ensure care could be delivered in a consistent manner and met people's assessed needs. One relative told us, 'They spent time making sure that the needs could be met and we have never looked back.' Staff were able to tell us about people's individual needs and how they delivered their care. This meant that because staff had a good knowledge of each person's care needs and preferences they were able to provide effective care.
Staff had received the robust information, training and support they needed to do their job effectively. There were arrangements in place that ensured staff had the most up-to-date information about people's needs. This included 'handovers' of relevant information for staff in the supported living part of the service and regular meetings for other staff.
Is the service caring?
We spoke to the relatives of four people who used the service. They told us that all of the staff were kind and provided a good standard of care. We were told that staff interacted with people in a patient, kind, and gentle manner. Feedback we saw said, 'They have great respect in helping' to retain a degree of dignity. All greatly appreciated.' Another comment stated, 'Come on in leaps and bounds.'
One relative said, 'I always see a consistent group of carers, I have no issues at all.' Someone else said, 'We are lucky to have them.'
Staff told us that they encouraged people to do things for themselves but they made sure people were safe and provided them with timely assistance whenever that was appropriate. People were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and ensured their individual needs were met.
We saw that staff had signed a dignity charter which meant that the provider expected them to adhere to certain standards when providing care and support to people. This included when staff assisted people with personal care, such as toileting or bathing, they made sure doors were closed to protect people's dignity and privacy. We were told that people were addressed by their preferred name and saw that this had been part of the initial assessment prior to care being commenced.
Is the service responsive to people's needs?
People told us that if they needed the staff to do anything different or arrive at a different time the service were responsive to their request. People also said that they could guarantee the staff would arrive when expected. We saw that there was enough staff on duty to meet people's nursing and personal care needs. This was also confirmed by the four staff, and four relatives we spoke with.
All the staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to support people in a way that respected each person as an individual, each with their own needs and preferences for how they wished to receive their care and support.
Is the service well-led?
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and were supported effectively by the manager and provider. One staff member said, 'There is a good relationship between us all.'
The provider sought the views of people using the service and their representatives, and took account of these to make improvements. We found that there were effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service they provided and as a result they had identified concerns with the service in a timely fashion.
Staff said they received a good level of practical day-to-day support to enable them to carry out their duties. The provider had ensured there were robust quality assurance processes in place. This meant that people were assured of receiving the care they needed in a way that suited them.
The staff we spoke with told us said that the manager and provider had an 'open door' approach so that staff could readily express any concerns or ask for guidance whenever they needed to.