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.

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. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff were supported to deliver care and support in line with the provider’s values. A staff member told us, “I believe there is a strong focus on people’s safety and wellbeing. Staff are expected to work responsibly, follow care plans and risk assessments, maintain safeguarding awareness and report concerns appropriately.”

The provider used staff supervision and team meetings to reinforce the service’s values and ensure these were reflected in staff’s working practices.

The provider had leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. However, there were mixed views as to whether leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

People spoke positively about the accessibility and responsiveness of managers. A relative told us, “The management and owner are very easy to contact…They are always available to solve any issues or discuss my relatives’ care in any detail.”

Staff said managers were approachable and focused on meeting the needs of people using the service. A staff member said, “My managers are experienced and knowledgeable about the service and the responsibilities involved in providing care. They are approachable when staff need advice or guidance and take their responsibilities towards the people using the service seriously.”

However, feedback from partner organisations working with the service was less positive. Prior to this assessment, we had been made aware of concerns raised by local authority partners about the service, including concerns relating to its leadership and management. During this assessment, we reviewed these areas of concern and found evidence that the provider had taken them seriously and acted to make improvements. For example, a new manager had been appointed to support the service and provide greater continuity in leadership and oversight of day to day practices.

Although this was a positive change for the service, it was too early to assess the effectiveness of the new leadership arrangements or their impact on the service at the time of this assessment. We will review this again at our next assessment to assess whether the improvements have been sustained.

People and staff felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Records showed that people were confident raising concerns with staff if they were unhappy with the care and support they received. The provider responded appropriately to concerns raised.

Staff were encouraged to raise concerns. A staff member told us, “I am encouraged to raise concerns and speak openly if something is not right. I feel that safeguarding, people’s safety and quality of care are taken seriously, and I understand that concerns should be reported rather than ignored.”

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, “My experience has been positive, and I feel that I am treated fairly and respectfully by managers.”

Governance arrangements at the service were not entirely effective.

Systems used by managers to manage and monitor the service had not sufficiently identified or addressed issues relating to the consistency and quality of records maintained by staff. We found no evidence that people had been put at risk as a result of these issues. However, inconsistencies in records had the potential to result in staff not having all the information they needed to provide care and support safely and effectively.

The provider had not always collaborated and worked effectively with partners to ensure services worked seamlessly for people.

Prior to this assessment, we were aware that local authority partners had notified the provider of issues and concerns they had about the service. Feedback from local authority partners indicated concerns about the provider’s responsiveness in working with local partners to sufficiently identify the nature of the concerns, so these could be addressed with a focus on improving the quality and safety of the care people received and their experiences of receiving care.

During this assessment, the provider demonstrated that they were taking steps to improve partnership working. This included participating in meetings with partners and providing information when required to demonstrate that concerns were being taken seriously and addressed. We saw that recommendations made by the local authority had been incorporated into an ‘action log’. This enabled the provider and local authority partners to review and monitor progress against required actions and agreed timescales.

At the time of this assessment, it was too early to determine the impact of the actions taken or whether they had resulted in sustained improvements in partnership working and positive outcomes for people using the service. We will review this at our next assessment to determine whether the actions taken have been effective and sustained.

The provider had not always demonstrated that they worked proactively across the organisation and local system to ensure continuous improvement and learning across their service.

Prior to this assessment, we were aware that local authority partners had raised issues and concerns about the service with the provider. These concerns had not been sufficiently identified or addressed through the provider’s own quality assurance and monitoring systems.

At this assessment, the provider was taking action to address the areas identified for improvement. This included strengthening leadership and oversight through the appointment of a new manager; employing additional staff to improve the continuity and stability of care and support; 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.