Eliot House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Safeguarding incidents were managed appropriately. Where improvements were needed to provider processes or staff practice, these were made in a timely way and any lessons learned were shared with staff. Incidents were reported to CQC and the local authority when appropriate.

The provider ensured people were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act. People’s capacity to make decisions about their care was assessed and where they were unable to express their wishes, their relatives or representatives were consulted, to ensure any decisions made were in their best interests. When people were being deprived of their liberty to keep them safe, the provider had sought authorisation to do this, in line with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Managers and staff managed risks to people’s health and safety well. People received safe care which reflected their needs and risks. Care plans and risk assessments contained detailed information about people’s needs and risks to guide staff about how to support them safely. People were referred for specialist healthcare support when needed, for issues such as a risk of choking, falling or skin damage.

People and relatives told us staff provided safe care. One person told us, “I definitely feel safe here. I have a special bed with an air mattress and there have been no medical incidents or falls whilst I’ve been here.” One relative commented, “[Relative] is safe here. Everything we see when we visit is as we would expect or better.”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We received mixed feedback about staffing levels. Most people and relatives felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. However, most staff felt staffing levels needed to be increased in the afternoon and evening due to the level of support people needed at that time of the day. We discussed this feedback with the registered manager and provider. They reviewed people’s needs and increased staffing levels following our inspection. During our visits we observed people’s needs being met in a timely way.

The provider ensured staff were recruited safely and appropriate checks were completed before staff began working at the service. We received very positive feedback about the skills of permanent staff. However, some people and relatives felt the agency staff who provided cover at the service were not always as competent. A relative commented, “The permanent staff are exceptional but some of the agency staff seem to lack experience and skills.” We discussed this with the registered manager, who provided evidence she had completed appropriate checks of competence before agency staff worked at the service and they received an appropriate induction. She acknowledged that some agency staff had not met the expected standard and she had raised concerns with some of the agencies involved. She told us some agency staff no longer worked at the service.

Staff completed the provider’s mandatory training, which enabled them to support people well. They received regular supervision and yearly appraisals, when their performance was discussed. They told us they felt well supported and could raise any concerns with the registered manager or deputy manager. A staff member commented, “[Registered manager] and [deputy manager] are both lovely. All the staff are great. We’re 1 big team.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.