Ellerslie Court

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy, and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff used inappropriate language when referring to people, both around the home and in some care plans. One staff member referred to a person as a “messy boy,” and another person’s care plan described them as a “volatile person.”

During both days of our assessment, we observed interactions between staff and people were mainly task focused, with minimal interaction. However, people and family members we spoke with told us staff were always really welcoming and friendly. One family member told us, “Staff are lovely, like a big family.”

Feedback we received from healthcare professionals about staff was positive.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans did not always contain information about people’s social histories or their likes and dislikes, with ‘about me’ sections often left blank. There was a lack of person-centred information in care plans, and goals were not specific for people.

Care provided by staff was mainly task orientated, resulting in care that was not always personalised for people. People were not always able to participate in activities they enjoyed or access the local community as they wished.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

People were not always given choice or included in decisions about daily life, such as what they ate and drank, or times they had their meals. People told us they were not given a choice of what time their meals were served and were not included in the meal planning process.

We observed an overall lack of activities and stimulation for people. At the time of the assessment, there was no activities coordinator employed to facilitate activities. We identified games and shape sorters that were not age appropriate, and there was no evidence that people had chosen these or enjoyed playing with them. Not all people were supported to access the community when they wanted to. One family member told us, “They play childlike games that are not appropriate,” and added, “[Name] does not go out at all since she has been here.” The games were removed following our feedback. Since our assessment, an activities coordinator has been employed at the service and the process for meal planning has been improved to include people.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

We observed some delays in call bells being answered. On the second day of the assessment, we observed one person’s call bell was sounding for 15 minutes before a member of staff responded. People we spoke with said they often had to wait for the support they needed. A complaint from January 2025 from one person raised similar concerns.

There were not enough staff to respond to people’s immediate needs. We observed one staff member leave a person who required 24 hour 1:1 support, to answer a call bell, as there were no other staff available.

Staff we spoke with confirmed there was not enough staff available to meet people’s needs. One staff member said, “We can’t give people 1:1 time and cannot respond to people in a timely way.” Another staff member told us, “We are rushed for time, there are always buzzers going off.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.
While one staff member told us they felt happy and valued, the majority did not always feel the same. Most of the staff we spoke with said they did not feel supported or appreciated by the management team, a situation which had worsened following a change in manager. One staff member said, “Lots of staff are not happy now, morale has gone down,” while another added, “There are no wellbeing incentives, not had supervision in months and there is no employee of the month anymore.”
This was fed back to the provider, who was already aware of concerns around staff morale and had plans in place to improve this.