Eliot Gardens

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.

This is the first assessment for this service under the new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 86 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the provider ensured adjustments were made to cater for the individual. People’s apartments were decorated the way they wanted and felt homely.

Leaders requested more funded hours for support when people’s health or wellbeing had deteriorated. Staff also told us about how a person had been moved downstairs in one scheme due to a deterioration in their health and requiring a hoist.

People and those close to them participated in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it was centred around them and their needs. However, as mentioned, most of the people we spoke with were unaware of their care records.

People’s care records were up-to-date and fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Care records contained a background section which provided a good range of historical life information, as well as a likes and dislikes worksheet. Other information included support needed to keep people and those around them safe.

People’s care records contained details specific to them. Communication plans provided specific details of people’s preferred communication methods and what staff should and should not do to help them to communicate. Nutrition and hydration sections of care records clearly outlined people’s food preferences and how they liked their food to be served.

Each scheme had a variety of activities and people regularly came together to share resources and opportunities.

The provider had identified a shortage of activities for males within one of the schemes and following a resident forum agreed to request funding for support with a greenhouse project. Other plans to improve the outdoor facilities for the male residents were in the planning phase.

Staff told us people’s needs were changing all the time due to the nature of the client group. They said they adapted to events including decline in health and ensured care was provided to cater for their most up-to-date needs.

Staff and leaders were observed having person-centred interactions with people and their relatives. We observed staff effectively managing a person’s behaviour that needed support by calmly guiding them outside to help them de-escalate and regain composure, demonstrating a holistic and person-centred approach.

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

The provider ensured people received the care and support they were funded for. We saw evidence of the provider proactively seeking input around eligibility and funding, especially when a person’s needs changed. The head of the service remodelled one of the schemes with support of the finance team to facilitate an additional waking night at one of the schemes. The provider collaborated closely with the local authority to agree this.

Staff and leaders had a good understanding of the health and social care needs of the people they were supporting. They ensured appropriate referrals and reviews were conducted which ensured people were getting the right level of support for their health and social care needs.

The provider ensured people had continuity of care. Most care staff worked in the same scheme, and it was evident from the rota’s people would see similar staff on shift throughout the week. Furthermore, leaders provided an example regarding Eliot Gardens in which there were 12 staff members for 35 people being supported which meant familiarity was common. The provider had also reduced their agency staff usage to below 3%.

The provider participatedin the ‘ProgresswithUnityLearning Festival: One Year On’, marking the anniversary of a shared commitment to reimagining how services work across Wigan Borough. This event brought together partners to reconnect, reflect on successes, and explore futuredevelopments. Theseforums and initiatives helped to strengthen collaboration, share best practices, and ensure schemes continued to evolve in response to people’s needs.

Partners told us the provider worked in a highly collaborative and coordinated way with other professionals and services to meet the care and support needs of individuals. A partner said “Communication is open, respectful, and consistent, which helps ensure that everyone involved is working towards shared goals. Staff are proactive in engaging with social care teams, health professionals, and community services, and they always keep the individual at the centre of planning and decision-making. This joined-up approach helps deliver holistic, person-centred care that reflects the complexity of people’s needs.”

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

People’s communication needs were reviewed by staff and leaders and were documented well within their care records. They had a clear “dos and don’ts” section for staff to follow which included advice such as to repeat comments slowly if not initially understood and for some people not to be communicated with when intoxicated.

People and those close to them were provided with information that was accessible, safe, and secure and supported their rights and choices. People had access to welcome packs when they entered the schemes. These were available in easy read format and in different languages.

People’s communication needs were considered. For people with reduced memory, whiteboards, notes, signs, and calendars were used.

People were supported to make and attend optician arrangements and hearing aid clinics. People’s requests such as larger prints or other formats were provided.

People had access to a range of easy read documents including the safeguarding process and the complaints and compliments procedure. Staff were aware of these documents being in people’s care records.

People’s care records were stored securely. They were on an electronic system which was password protected.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had an up-to-date complaints policy and procedure. Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. Policies and procedures contained the appropriate information for people to make a complaint or raise a concern. The provider had very few complaints which had been raised in the last 12 months. Of the complaints raised, these had been raised and managed appropriately and in line with the providers policy.

The provider ensured investigations into complaints were comprehensive. In response to a recent complaint, the provider shared feedback questionnaires with all tenants; reviewed commissioned hours within the service and individuals packages to identify potential hours to increase social/activity time; ensured the quality performance officer liaised with the staff team and completed quality assurance checks with tenants; completed drop in sessions for all tenants for them to share their thoughts, wishes and suggestions and implemented a committee to raise funds for equipment and trips as suggested from the feedback.

The provider ensured it was easy for people to share feedback, ideas and raise concerns or complaints about their care, treatment and support. People knew how to give feedback about their experience of care and support. Most people we spoke to told us they would raise their concerns with the staff member providing care to them on that day or the management team. People and relatives felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. Regular resident surveys and tenant’s meetings also provided people the opportunity to share their concerns.

The provider shared feedback from complaints and concerns with staff and learning was used to improve the service. Following a letter of complaint being received in 2024, the registered manager responded by completing a piece of work regarding culture with the team.

The provider viewed complaints and concerns being raised as an opportunity for improvement.

The provider held wellbeing sessions for people. In October, one of the schemes held an afternoon tea which was a ladies’ well – being session with a focus on supporting people to spot the early signs of breast cancer and other related conditions.

The provider was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider ensured the schemes were designed to make them accessible for people who were most likely to have difficulties accessing care or were in the wrong type of care. People moving into extra care schemes can face difficulties including emotional and psychological challenges, social challenges, practical and daily – living challenges and financial issues. Leaders had a vast amount of knowledge and experience supporting people with such challenges and worked alongside them. Case studies showed the immense progress from a variety of people within the schemes including people who had been severely underweight, those who had severe addictions and those who had no access to funds to now being much more stable in their lives.

The provider ensured the schemes allowed people to access support when they needed to in a way that worked for them. The provider supported people who required medical assistance to be referred in a prompt manner. We saw an outstanding example of staff supporting a person to remain within the service, in line with their wishes, following a hospital admission.

The provider ensured people had detailed ‘Hospital passports’ in place to help hospital staff understand the person, their communication needs, their fears and what their behaviours might mean.

Documentation which was reviewed demonstrated that when staff had identified concerns, they had followed support plans to contact the emergency services or the GP promptly. We observed people coming out of their apartments into the communal areas to seek support from others including staff or other people. We also saw people coming into the office to speak with managers when they needed support or advice.

People’s care and support was timely and in line with best practice, quality standards, and legal requirements. People could access support in an emergency as there were always support staff on shift and staff also had access to an on-call system which meant leaders were available if required. Staff made reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressed communication barriers and ensured the premises was accessible to all. The provider worked with the housing providers to make reasonable adjustments to people’s apartments to make them more accessible and to support people’s health and wellbeing. A passive hoist was installed for a person who suffered a broken neck of femur, as well as an electronic push button so they could enter and leave the property when they wish.

Staff made efforts to arrange, where possible, for people to receive treatment in their own home if they were unable to access the appointments, this included optical and chiropody services.

The provider ensured all the people within the schemes were offered similar opportunities regardless of protected characteristics. Each person was considered an individual and the provider allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle any inequalities with the goal to achieve equity. For example, the provider held events such as a “festival of sport” in which people were encouraged to participate in sports such as football, basketball, dodgeball, and cycling.

Partners praised the leaders as having an exceptional knowledge of the client group and the challenges they faced. They told us the schemes were responsive when they contacted them. They said “There is always a member of staff available on site to speak with, and out of hours contact has been reliable. This level of accessibility ensures that urgent matters can be addressed promptly.”

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.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. We saw evidence within people’s care records of how people with physical disabilities had been referred to services who provided mobility aids to improve their experience.

People did not raise any concerns about discrimination within the schemes and felt staff treated people equally.

Staff and leaders understood people’s rights under the Equality Act and Human Rights legislation. They spoke about the importance of people being free and able to make their own decisions, them having a right to their own space and providing them with dignity, as well as their rights to have fair access to services including healthcare.

Staff completed EDI training when they started with the schemes, as part of the care certificate. Some staff had not completed this training since 2018, although best practice is every 1 – 3 years. We raised this with the provider who confirmed this was correct but provided evidence of recent training regarding EDI which was being completed by an external consulting firm.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to make choices about their care and plan their future care. The provider had an end-of-life care policy and procedure which was up-to-date with the relevant information included. The care records showed evidence of end – of life care being discussed with most people if they wished to.

People’s care records reflected what mattered to them the most and detailed goals and aspirations for the future which were carefully broken down into manageable targets with the support of staff. Staff used a Likert scale (0 – 10) to determine progress in relation to targets and goals.

Staff and professionals had discussed with people their wishes regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation and do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions had been made by some. Some decisions had been made a considerable time ago, so we suggested conversations regarding this topic should be revisited to ensure people had not changed their mind.

Given the nature of the schemes, there was a focus on attempting to reduce care interventions, if appropriate, to enhance greater independence. The registered manager told us of work they had done previously in collaboration with families, people, and external professionals to move away from a purely pharmaceutical approach to a more person – centred, holistic approach to people’s care.

Staff told us they received training from the local hospice around end-of-life care and seemed knowledgeable about what it entailed.