Essence Supported Living limited Also known as Essence 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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to staff recruitment practices.

This service scored 62 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager told us the service only started supporting people with personal care in January 2026. Since then, they said there had not been any complaints, safeguarding allegations of accidents and incidents and we found no evidence to contradict this. However, systems were in place to promote learning if any such incidents did occur. For example, the provider had a set of relevant policies and procedures in place. Staff meetings and 1 to 1 supervision took place which gave the opportunity to share learning and lessons learned.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

At the time of inspection, only 1 person was receiving support with personal care. They were a private client and had not transferred from hospital. This meant the provider had not needed to ensure there was a smooth transition between services. However, they had carried out an assessment of the person’s needs prior to the provision of care to ensure things went smoothly and they could meet the person’s needs. Care plans included details of people’s GP to contact if required.

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.

The registered manager told us there had not been any safeguarding allegations since the service first started providing care. However, systems were in place to deal with this. The provider had a safeguarding adult’s policy in place to guide practice in this area. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training and were aware of their responsibility to report any allegations of abuse. A member of staff said, “We have to report [allegations of abuse] to you guys [CQC] and the manager.”

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were in place for people, covering risks including medicines, skin integrity and moving and handling. They were person-centred and included information about how to mitigate risks. However, a person had a specific health condition which had not been assessed for risk. A member of staff said they had started to draft the assessment, but it was not yet complete. The provider sent us a completed version of this assessment shortly after our inspection.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider supported people who lived in their own homes. As such, the provider was not responsible for the maintenance of people’s property or possessions. However, they had caried out environmental risk assessments to help ensure the environment was safe for staff to work in.

The provider did not make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

The provider did not carry out all required pre-employment checks on staff. For the two staff employed to provide personal care at the time of inspection they had not carried out criminal records checks. Instead, they relied on checks that had been caried out by a previous employer almost two years before they commenced working at the service. This meant there was a risk people might be supported by staff who were not suitable to work in a care setting. This was a breach of Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider carried out criminal records checks shortly after our inspection, which sowed staff did not have any criminal convictions. Other checks on prospective staff, such as proof of identity and employment references had been caried out.

There were enough staff working at the service to support people. People told us staff were punctual. A relative said, “Yes they [staff] are on time.” Staff undertook training and received supervision to support them in their role.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

There were systems in place to help prevent the spread of infection. Staff were expected to wear personal protective equipment [PPE] when providing support with personal care. Staff confirmed that they did wear PPE. A member of staff said, “We always have enough PPE.” Staff had also undertaken training about infection control. In addition, the provider had a policy on infection prevention and control to help guide good practice in this area.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff supported people to take their medicines. When they gave a medicine, they signed a medicine administration record. The nominated individual carried out an audit of medicines records to check medicines had been administered appropriately. Staff undertook training on the administration of medicines which included an assessment of their competency. The provider had a medicines policy to help guide practice in this area.