Elite Careplus Ltd

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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

We identified a breach of the regulations. The provider’s governance systems were not effective and failed to identify and address issues we found at this assessment. Staff did not always maintain an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record about the care and support provided to people.

This service scored 61 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding the challenges and needs of people and their communities. However, these values were not consistently reflected in the working practices of all staff.

During this assessment, we found some staff were choosing to work long days without taking breaks. This increased the risk of people receiving unsafe or inappropriate care and support. We also found some staff were not making timely records of the care and support provided to people. This increased the risk that people would not receive consistent, safe and effective care and support in line with their needs.

We discussed these concerns with the registered manager, who told us they had previously identified that these practices were occurring. However, despite raising the concerns with staff, these practices continued at the time of our assessment.

The registered manager acknowledged that further improvement was required in this area and told us staff supervision and team meetings were being used to reinforce the service’s values and expectations, and how these should be reflected in staff’s working practices.

The provider understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

People spoke positively about the accessibility and responsiveness of managers. A relative told us, “We have a very good relationship with management and office staff…They are very pro-active anytime you need them to be.” Another relative said, “The relationship with management and office staff is really good and very easy to contact…If we call or send an email, the response is pretty much immediate.”

Staff told us managers were experienced and offered support and guidance when needed. A staff member said, “I feel the managers have good knowledge and experience and can help us when we need advice.” Another staff member told us, “Management is accessible 24/7 for guidance and in emergency situations…they are well experienced in this healthcare sector.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

People told us they were confident raising concerns with staff if they were unhappy with the care and support they received. They told us the provider responded appropriately to any concerns they raised.

Staff were encouraged to speak up and raise concerns. One staff member told us, “I’m encouraged to speak up. I feel I can speak to my manager if something is not right. I know it is important to report concerns to protect the people we care for.” Another staff member said, “The organization maintains a strict, zero recrimination whistleblowing policy to promote a safe and transparent learning culture.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff were treated equally and fairly at work. They received training to develop their knowledge and understanding of equality, inclusion and fairness in the workplace. Staff had equal opportunities to learn and progress in their roles if they wished to do so. A staff member told us, “I feel I am treated fairly and with respect by my managers. I feel comfortable speaking to them in general or if I have any concerns.” Another staff member said, “Management enforces an inclusive workplace culture that provides equal access to shifts and disciplinary fairness.”

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best available information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider’s governance systems were not effective. During this assessment, we identified serious concerns about the scheduling of care calls, action taken to safeguard people from the risk of abuse, the management of identified risks to people, and the accuracy and completeness of records relating to medicines administered and the care and support provided to people. The provider’s systems had failed to identify and address these issues effectively, increasing the risk that people would receive unsafe and inappropriate care and support from staff.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider worked in partnership with health and social care professionals when required. They followed their guidance and recommendations to support staff learning and improve the safety and quality of care and support provided to people.

The provider’s systems had not always been used effectively to identify and address potential problems before they occurred. During this assessment, we were aware that the provider was working with local healthcare partners following quality reviews of the service, which had identified concerns about the supported living provision. These concerns had not been sufficiently identified or addressed through the provider’s own monitoring systems.

However, the provider demonstrated that they were learning from the concerns and issues raised and were taking action to address the identified areas for improvement. This included strengthening leadership and oversight through the appointment of a new manager, improving the information recorded in people’s care records and risk assessments, and investing in a new electronic records system to improve the quality and accessibility of records maintained by the service. Although these were positive changes, it was too early to assess their effectiveness or whether they had resulted in positive outcomes for people using the service. We will review this at our next assessment to check that these changes have been fully implemented, are effective and have been sustained.

Managers sought feedback from people and staff to support ongoing learning and improvement. They used this feedback to make improvements that reflected people’s views and preferences. A staff member told us, “We are given opportunities to give our opinions and say if we think something could be improved.”