Elite Careplus Ltd

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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to 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.

We identified three breaches of the regulations. Staff did not always assess risks to people's health and safety or mitigate them where identified. Staff did not always maintain a complete and accurate record of the medicines administered to people. Staff had not always been effectively deployed to meet people’s needs.

This service scored 59 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Systems were in place to support people and staff to report safety concerns and incidents. Records showed the provider investigated concerns and incidents and took action, where required, to make improvements. However, the provider could not effectively demonstrate that learning was being used to identify and embed good practice.

The registered manager told us information recorded on the provider’s systems was analysed to identify how people could be protected from further risk. They told us a report of this analysis would be produced. However, they were unable to provide a recent report at the time of our assessment, despite safety concerns and incidents having been reported during the previous 6 months. This meant we could not assess whether learning from these concerns and incidents was being effectively used to reduce risk and embed good practice at the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored.

The provider obtained information from people and others involved in their care to identify their care and support needs and risks to their safety and wellbeing. This information was used to develop individualised care and risk management plans, which were available to staff, to ensure people received the care and support they required, as soon as they started using the service.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not always concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

When safeguarding concerns about people were raised, the provider did not always take effective action to ensure people were safeguarded from further risk of abuse. Records maintained by the provider about safeguarding concerns raised and reported in relation to the service showed that, for one person, the provider had not taken sufficient action to safeguard them from ongoing risk following their experience of abuse. Although the provider had reported the abuse to the relevant authorities, they had not worked with the person to agree how the provider could safeguard them from further risk of abuse. We discussed these concerns with the registered manager. They took action after our visits, to address them and put arrangements in place to ensure measures were put in place to safeguard the person from further risk of abuse.

However, people felt confident the provider took concerns about their safety seriously. A relative told us, “I’m also absolutely satisfied that safeguarding is followed very well, in fact they go above and beyond.” Another relative told us, “My relative is very safe with the carers…They follow all safeguarding rules.”

Staff had received training to safeguard people from abuse. A staff member told us, “I make sure I treat people with respect and dignity. I look out for any signs of abuse or neglect and if I am worried about someone, I report it to my manager straight away.”

The provider worked with the relevant agencies when concerns about people were raised. Records showed that outcomes and findings from safeguarding enquiries were used to make necessary improvements, where practicably possible.

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.

The provider’s arrangements for assessing and managing identified risks to people were not always effective. We reviewed the care records of one person using the service and found that the provider had completed a range of risk assessments to identify risks to the person’s safety and wellbeing. However, where a specific risk to the person’s safety and wellbeing had been identified, the provider had not put measures in place to ensure that risk was effectively managed and minimised. The provider had also been slow to assess, review and manage newly identified risks. The person’s needs had recently changed, and they required additional support with nutrition and hydration. However, their care plan and associated risk assessments had not been updated to reflect these changes or the additional support required. These issues put the person at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care and support from staff. We discussed these concerns with the registered manager. They took action after out visits, to address them and put arrangements in place to manage and mitigate the identified risks.

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 had assessed potential risks within people’s living environments and put measures in place to reduce these risks and keep people safe. These arrangements were reviewed when people’s care and support needs were reassessed, to ensure the measures remained appropriate and effective.

The provider had not always made sure staff were effectively deployed to meet people’s needs. We reviewed staff rotas and found, during the month of July 2026, numerous instances where some staff had been scheduled to attend care calls without adequate travel time between calls. This put people at risk of not receiving their care and support in a safe, timely manner that met their individual needs. We discussed these concerns with the registered manager. They took action after out visits, to address them and put arrangements in place to ensure staff were allocated sufficient travel time between care calls.

Despite this, people spoke positively about the punctuality and timeliness of their scheduled care calls. A relative told us, “Punctuality is very good...They are 98% on time.”

Staff completed relevant training to help them meet people’s needs. They were supported to develop and improve their practice through supervision and reviews of their work performance. A staff member said, “I get training to help me do my job properly and keep my knowledge up to date.”

The provider carried out the necessary checks on staff applying to work at the service to ensure they were suitable to support people.

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.

Staff had received training and support to help reduce the risk of infection in people’s living environments. They had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimise these risks. A relative told us, “I feel the carers have very high standards of hygiene…I’ve never had any cause for concerns…Domestically they also keep the environment clean with hoovering and wear all the PPE.”

Medicines management arrangements were not always safe.

People’s care records indicated people received their medicines as prescribed. However, staff had not maintained an accurate record of the medicines administered. We reviewed the care records and medicines administration record (MAR) for one person, and this showed, on a number of occasions, conflicting information about which staff member had administered medicines to them. The person’s MAR was also incomplete as a prescribed medicine administered daily, had not been included on this record. Incomplete and inaccurate records maintained by staff, increased the risk of people receiving inappropriate and unsafe support to take their prescribed medicines.