We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ellerbeck Court 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 Ellerbeck Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Ellerbeck Court is a domiciliary care agency providing support to people living in their own home. The service comprised of 12 individual flats. Not everyone who used the service received support with personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care support. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection, the service provided personal care support to two people.
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.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. There were enough staff to meet the needs of people and safe recruitment procedures were in place. Some people were involved in the recruitment process of new staff.
Staff felt well supported by the registered manager, deputy manager and their colleagues. Training appropriate to the needs of people was delivered and staff received supervision and appraisals in line with the provider’s policy. Staff told us they enjoyed their work and were focused on achieving the best possible outcomes for people.
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 outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People were treated with dignity and respect. One visiting professional told us, “The care for the service users really shines through. Staff are really interested in people progressing, it’s refreshing to see when you go, it’s all really good.”
Opportunities were available for people to be involved in a wide range of meaningful activities that were appropriate to them. People were encouraged to maintain contact and relationships with people who were important to them.
The service was well led. A range of systems were in place to monitor the quality and management of the service. Care plans contained relevant person-centred information which provided detail to guide staff in the actions to take when delivering care and support. Care plans did not consider any preferred preferences people may have for their end of life care. We have made a recommendation about this.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at the last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 2 June 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on our inspection programme.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
Ellerbeck Court is a supported living project with 12 flats for people with learning disabilities, and has an office where staff provide a contact point throughout the day and night. It was registered in May 2016 to provide personal care service. At the time of the inspection 10 flats were occupied and only one person required support with personal care. The other nine people were living independently and required minimal support to assist them deal with the social and emotional aspects of day to day living.
This was the first inspection since the service was registered.
A registered manager has been in post since the service opened in May 2016. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Individual risk assessments were in place to support people with promoting their independence and safety. In addition to individual risk assessments, the service also had a range of environmental risk assessments. People’s support plans were specific and centred around their individualised support needs. Support plans were up to date and were regularly evaluated .Staff knew people and were knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs. However we noted that the registered provider needed to ensure the care record template reflected the service was a domiciliary care agency providing care packages and not a care home.
Each person had a care package, which set out how many hours support they needed per day. For most people the hours were for staff to support them to learn budgeting, cooking and cleaning skills. Also support to deal with any anxieties they may experience when socialising and to join in community activities. One person lived independently but needed support to attend to their personal care needs.
We spent the majority of time reviewing how the needs of the person who required personal care were met but also spoke with people did not require personal care but wanted to discuss their experience of the service. People told us staff were caring and kind. Staff encouraged people to be involved with communal activities but respected their decision if they did not want to participate.
The service had detailed safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place which provided information about how to recognise the signs of abuse, and how to respond to any concerns.
The service had safe systems in place to ensure people were supported with managing their medicines appropriately. People were supported with promoting their health and nutrition.
Records within staff files demonstrated proper recruitment checks were being carried out. These checks include employment and reference checks, identity checks and a disclosure and barring service check (DBS). A DBS check is a report which details any offences which may prevent the person from working with vulnerable people. They help providers make safer recruitment decisions. Staff were supported with regular training opportunities that linked to the care and support needs of people living in the service.
Staff received mandatory training in a number of areas, including food hygiene, which assisted them to support people effectively. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and appraisals. None of the people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care but staff understood how to ensure people’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were protected.
People were supported to carry out health and safety checks within their own flats.
People using in the service and their representatives were provided with information to support them to raise any concerns or complaints they may have. People told us the registered manager and staff were approachable.
The service had a quality assurance system which included a range of internal checks and audits to support continuous improvement. Action plans were put in place to address any shortfalls in service provision and to demonstrate how areas of improvement were addressed. Again we noted that the registered provider needed to review the system, as it was more aligned to one seen in care homes and not domiciliary care.