Elevation Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We assessed the following quality statements: Shared Direction and Culture, and Governance, Management and Sustainability. Improvements were required to ensure effective management and oversight of incidents which occurred involving people who received support. There was limited evidence of oversight by the provider. Improvements were needed to ensure records about people’s care, mental capacity assessments and training records were up to date and accurate. Staff felt well supported in their roles by the management team.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

All the staff we spoke with told us they felt valued and listened to by the management team. They told us they were able to raise and discuss any arising issues and there was good communication between staff and the management team. One staff member told us, “I will always say if I’ve made a mistake, I’d report to management or the team lead, they listen.”

Regular meetings and surveys took place for people and their relatives to give their views on the quality of the service being provided. There was an open and inclusive approach to the running of the service. Regular staff meetings took place. We looked at a sample of staff minutes and saw they covered many topics relevant to the service.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Governance processes were not effective at ensuring the quality and safety of the service. The provider’s oversight of the service was limited, and they undertook no audits of the service. The systems in place had not resulted in timely improvement to the areas of concern found during the inspection. For example, in relation to incident management, care plans, risk assessments, medicines and mental capacity. There was no system in place for people to record their agreement with care arrangements. Quality processes had not identified people’s involvement in their care planning had not been recorded. The system in place to ensure staff received appropriate training and supervision had not been effectively implemented and not all staff had received training and supervision in line with the provider’s policy. The registered manager and senior staff had regular meetings and undertook a number of audits of the service and where areas of concern had been identified actions were in place to drive improvement.

Staff told us they were supported in their roles by the management team.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.