• Care Home
  • Care home

Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 13 Alexandra Gardens

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

13 Alexandra Gardens, Hounslow, Middlesex, TW3 4HT (020) 8154 7445

Provided and run by:
Elysium Care Partnerships Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 13 Alexandra Gardens on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 13 Alexandra Gardens, you can give feedback on this service.

29 May 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 13 Alexandra Gardens is a care home for people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home in a residential area, bigger than most domestic style properties for eight people with four self-contained flats joined to it by a communal court yard. It was registered for the support of up to 12 people. 12 people were using the service at the time of the inspection. This is a larger care service than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider had a strong ethos and culture of delivering quality care and support to people. Their systems to monitor, manage and improve service delivery and to improve the care and support provided to people were highly effective. People using the service and staff reported the strong commitment of the registered manager to the service. They were always available and they actively listened and promoted an open and transparent work environment. There were regular meetings where information was shared with staff and people who used the service and concerns were discussed. The registered manager liaised with other professionals to share best practice and develop the team’s skills and knowledge.

The provider identified and mitigated risks to support people to remain safe. They did this in a way that was meaningful and enabling to the person. One person was supported to create their own ‘rules’ to manage risks around their behaviours, so that they took ownership for their own safety with a primary focus on promoting their independence.

Incidents and accidents were managed through a process where staff, including a behaviour analyst and speech and language therapist, could reflect upon the incident, analyse it, learn from it and put in preventative measures to minimise risks and behaviours that challenged and thereby improved the quality of people’s lives. This approach led to the number of incidents for one person dropping from up to 83 incidents in a month, to months without any incidents.

The provider and staff had a very good understanding of each person’s behaviour and the factors that could impact on this. For example, there was a recognition that the environment could impact on the way a person behaved and the provider went over and above to tailor the environment to suit people’s needs.

Staff were very skilled at using a wide range of methods to communicate with people as part of the provider’s ‘total communication’ approach. This ensured people had access to the right means of communication for them to make their needs known and so that staff could communicate with them. For example, the provider used ‘now and next boards’ (a visual aid of pictures that showed what activity is happening now and what will happen next) to help prepare people for what was going to happen next on a day to day basis. The various initiatives of supporting people to understand information, played a significant role in supporting people to make decisions and to be involved in their care.

The staff liaised with various healthcare professionals to identify the optimal ways of supporting people with their healthcare needs and to lead healthier lives. We saw an example where one person lost weight and started to benefit from improved health outcomes through a review of their medicines and support from staff to change to a healthier lifestyle

The provider demonstrated an exceptionally strong social care model approach to care and person-centred culture by making people their primary focus and not just addressing their physical needs.

There was an exceptionally varied range of activities that was tailored to the people using the service. For example, people took part in community projects, went on holidays, and used interactive light system games to help them to communicate and improve skills such as problem solving and dexterity.

The provider used person-centred care planning to make sure people received the care they needed and took account of people’s sensory and communication profiles and positive behaviour plans. They recognised all these areas had an impact on people’s behaviour and needed to be addressed as a whole.

Staff undertook reflective practice around the care provided to people, to review if the care provided was appropriate to meet people’s needs and to reflect on what else could have been done.

The service is accredited and is part of a number of local and national initiatives and organisations and has an impact not only locally and regionally but also nationally in terms of the national guidance they have contributed to, for example their contribution to the Skills for Care guidance.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensured that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was outstanding (published18 November 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

4 October 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 4 and 6 October 2016. The visit on the 4 October was unannounced. We told the provider we would be returning on the second day.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered on the 14 August 2015

London Care Partnership Limited - 13 Alexandra Gardens is a care home for up to 12 adults who have a learning disability and autism or other associated needs. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people living at the service. The people living at the home were adults under the age of 25 years. Four people lived in self-contained flats and eight other people lived within the main building. People living at the home had a range of autistic spectrum needs and some additional physical, sensory, health and/or communication needs as well as a learning disability.

The service was run by London Care Partnership Limited, a privately owned organisation who run seven care homes for younger adults with learning disabilities in London and the South East of England.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service had made a difference to the lives of people who lived there. Everyone living at the service was a young adult who had moved out of their parental home or residential schools into the service. There had been positive changes for these young adults in the year since the service opened which could be measured and evidenced through their personal achievements, their happiness and the fact they were able to try new things and have new experiences. For example, one person was attending college and other people were accessing local community facilities such as sports centres. There had also been a significant reduction in the number of incidents where people expressed their anger or anxiety through physical aggression. Before moving to the home, the majority of people had been physically challenging towards others some or most of the time. There was evidence that challenges such as these were now rare for everybody living at the service.

In addition, the staff were still providing new opportunities and experiences for people and supporting them to constantly reflect on what they had achieved and look at what they would like to do in the future. For example, some people were being supported to start the process of applying for work or college placements. Other people were learning skills to be more independent.

People lived in a safe, comfortable and homely environment. They were able to take risks and were supported to make decisions which reflected their preferences and individual needs. The staff worked in an extremely person centred way, by responding to the person's individual communication and sensory needs to make sure the care and support they were providing was right for each person. This included the way in which they responded to risks, making sure people felt safe and had the support they needed in any given situation. This meant that each person had a bespoke service which developed with them and changed to reflect the changes taking place in their lives, confidence and abilities. This was confirmed by the relatives and professionals who we spoke with, who felt the person centred approach was a particularly positive feature of the service.

People living at the home felt happy there and were able to follow their own personal interests. Each person had a plan of social, leisure and educational activities which was tailor made for them and considered how they wanted to live their lives as well as their emotional and health needs. The staff worked very closely with a team of healthcare consultants to make sure support was planned in an appropriate and individualised way. This meant that all the decisions about people's care and support were well thought out and included the perspectives of different professionals. They had regular and comprehensive discussions to review each person's support plans to make sure they always considered their holistic needs. They monitored how people reacted and felt about each situation they were exposed to so that care could be adjusted to ensure it met the person's need. People were involved in planning their own care and making decisions. For people who could not express how they felt verbally, the staff made sure they had opportunities to express themselves in the way they could and that this was understood and acted upon.

The staff were well trained and supported. The training was provided by professionals who worked with people who lived at the service and knew them well, so that they could make sure the staff had the knowledge and skills to meet their individual needs. The staff were provided with opportunities to develop their skills and career. Individual staff abilities and interests were valued and incorporated into the way the service worked. All of the staff were able to contribute their ideas at all levels of the organisation from planning individual people's care to being part of developing new ways of working and procedures. The staff gave extremely positive feedback about working for the provider and the opportunities they felt they had been given.

The systems for monitoring and improving the service were an intrinsic part of the way the service worked. The staff continually monitored individual care, feedback from people using the service and information about them was used to reflect on and improve practice. Records were well thought out, clear and organised. The way in which records were used was seen by all the staff as an important part of quality assurance. Whilst the records were extremely detailed, time spent creating and updating these did not detract from the care provided to each person.

The culture of the service was open, transparent and progressive. All the staff were committed to continuous improvement of the service, individual care and looking at the provider as a whole. People using the service, their representatives and the staff felt valued and important representatives of the organisation. The staff felt ownership of and followed the aims and objectives of the organisation. People using the service and their representatives gave very positive feedback about their experiences. The staff regularly consulted relatives and external professionals to ask for their opinions. Relatives and professionals told us how they felt the service was outstanding.

The service had achieved accreditation from the National Autistic Society, who had recognised and commented on the bespoke nature of the support provided and the person centred care. They had also commented that the service worked well with other stakeholders, asking for their opinions and checking their satisfaction.