Elite Care UK 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.

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

This service scored 68 (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.

The provider had robust systems in place to ensure a person-centred approach to care. People’s care documentation evidenced people’s needs, likes and preferences as to how they wanted to be supported. For example, staff members were employed who spoke in a specific language to support people’s communication needs. People we spoke with agreed their care was person centred. One relative told us, “[My relative] is supported to be involved in conversations through staff speaking Punjabi.”

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.

The provider had a clear understanding of the diverse needs of the local community. This was demonstrated through a document which highlighted specifically, the needs of the local community. For example, an aging population or those with different cultural or religious backgrounds.

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

The provider did not always make sure people had information which was in a format accessible to them to meet accessible information standards. For example, care plans were not written in alternative languages to meet people’s communication needs. The provider did not provide people with relevant contact information so people could raise concerns, for example, safeguarding contact information. The provider has advised us they planned to produce alternative formatted documentation for people and update their client guides appropriately. People we spoke with advised us communication with the provider was excellent.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider ensured people and relatives had opportunity to provide feedback on their care, for example, through care reviews. The provider also had an anonymous letterbox where people, or staff could write in to raise concerns anonymously, and this was actively promoted by leaders.

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

The provider did not always ensure people who may be at increased risk of inequality under the Equality Act 2010, were supported to have equal access to care. For example, people’s communication needs were not specifically documented in care plans, although this was supported in practice. The provider has advised us how they plan to implement clearer documentation to evidence people’s communication needs. People we spoke with did not express concern about people’s access to care.

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 took active steps to promote equality of experience and outcomes for people. For example, staff members were employed who spoke relevant languages to accommodate people’s communication needs.

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.

The provider had an end-of-life policy in place, and people were supported to have discussions for planning for the future, although plans could have included more detail about people’s wishes and preferences at the end of their life.