You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 October 2017

This inspection took place on 30 August 2017 and was unannounced.

Ellerslie Court is a Victorian House that has been converted into a Care Home providing accommodation and personal care for up to fourteen adults with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people living at the home. The registered provider of the service was Lotus Care Limited. This was the service’s first inspection under the new registered provider.

The service provides accommodation over four floors with the use of a passenger lift. Communal areas are on the ground floor and consist of a dining room, two sitting rooms and a conservatory. There are a range of aids and adaptations to aid people with a range of physical disabilities.

A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

As part of our inspection, we checked that the service had sent is all statutory notifications that the provider is required to send us by law. We saw that we had received most notifications as required, however the registered manager had not sent in one notification to update us of the outcome of an incident. We discussed this at the time of our inspection and saw it was an error on the provider’s behalf. The provider took action straight away and we were sent this notification.

The people we spoke with told us that they liked living at the home and they felt safe. We saw there was enough staff on duty to be able to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. Staffing levels were accessed using a dependency tool to ensure sufficient numbers of staff were on shift.

Staff we spoke with were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused in any way. This involved reporting concerns to the manager in charge and whistleblowing to external organisations such as, CQC and the Local Authority.

Medication procedures were safe, and medication was only administered by staff who had received the correct training to do so. Medication was stored in line with best practice guidelines. Specialist techniques for administering medication were clearly recorded in people’s care plans.

Staff recruitment was safe. Staff were only offered positions at the home once all checks had been completed which included references and a police check.

Risk assessments contained key details with regards to how staff should offer appropriate support and reassurance for people to help mitigate risks. Accident and incident recording was thorough, and people had been appropriately referred to other clinical teams when needed.

People received support in line the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where appropriate. Where authorisations were required to lawfully deprive a person of their liberty, we saw these were requested without delay and reviewed regularly. DoLS applications were in place for people, and these were reviewed regularly.

Staff had recently undergone a new training programme, all staff training was updated according to the provider’s own mandatory training subjects. Certificates stored in a separate file confirmed that the staff had attended this training. In addition, all staff had received a supervision at least every eight weeks, and all staff had had an annual appraisal.

There was a wide range of menu choices available for people. Different diets were catered for, and there was a choice offered if people did not like the main course. We also saw fresh fruit was available in the dining room.

People told us and our observations showed that staff treated people with kindness, respect and consideration. Most of the staff had been in post for over three years, and knew the people who lived

Inspection areas



Updated 18 October 2017

The service was safe.

Risk assessments contained a sufficient level of information to help staff mitigate risks.

Medication was managed safely and stored securely.

Staff were recruited safely and were only offered positions in the home once all checks had been completed.

Staff were able to describe the process they would follow to help keep people safe from abuse.



Updated 18 October 2017

The service was effective.

People were support by staff who had the correct skills and knowledge to do so. Staff had access to regular supervision and had an annual appraisal.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were adhered to and staff were knowledgeable regarding this Act and associated legislation.

Menus offered a range of choice. People liked the choice of food.



Updated 18 October 2017

The service was caring.

We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people who lived at the home.

People told us they liked the staff, and staff were able to provide examples of how they offer respectful and diverse support.

There was advocacy information displayed if people required this.



Updated 18 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Care was highly personalised, and each person’s choices and personalities were taken into account when support plans were drawn up and care was delivered.

There was a complaints procedure in place which was available in a range of formats for people who required this. There had been no recent complaints for us to view.



Updated 18 October 2017

The service was well-led.

We had not received all statutory notifications as required. This was discussed at the time of inspection and we saw it was a mistake on the part of the provider and steps were taken to rectify this. We had received all other notifications as required.

Everyone we spoke with was complimentary about the registered manager and the new provider.

There was a process in place for gathering the views of the people who lived at the home. This had recently been completed.

Team meetings and resident meeting regularly took place so that people were able to share their views about the service.