Ellerslie Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 43 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans lacked person-centred details. Some ‘about me’ sections were blank, and care plans had not been updated regularly, so did not contain current information.

One family member described how their relative had deteriorated since living at the home due to a lack of stimulation, and they also highlighted that staff did not interact or communicate with her appropriately. The family member explained how their relative had a communication device before moving in. but it had not been seen since. This was raised with the registered manager, but no explanation was provided. We reviewed this person’s communication care plan and found it did not include the relevant information the family had shared.

Furthermore, people’s bedrooms did not always reflect their individual preferences. For example, one person’s bedroom contained belongings, including a wardrobe, from another person who had lived their previously, over 16 months ago. Although the person had asked for the items to be removed, they remained. We raised this with the provider, who then took immediate action to remove them.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Care plans were not always in place for people with specific needs, which meant staff had no guidance for managing some people’s health needs and associated risks. Staff would not always know when further support was needed for people.

Additionally, information to support staff to safely administer ‘when required’ medicines was not always in place, lacked detail or contained incorrect information. There was a risk that people were not having their medication when needed or as prescribed. For some people, ‘when required’ pain relief was being used on a regular basis, indicating their pain was not well controlled. However, there was no evidence their usage or effectiveness of pain relief had been reviewed, or further guidance sought from healthcare professionals.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We found a lack of accessible, easy-read information or documentation throughout the home to support individuals who require assistance with understanding complex information. For instance, one person’s communication care plan clearly stated they struggled with processing complicated or detailed information. Despite this, no alternative formats, such as simplified text or visual aids, were available to meet their needs. Additionally, daily menus were not displayed in any format, whether written or pictorial, limiting people’s ability to make informed choices about their meals.

Following feedback, the provider improved the availability of easy read documentation around the home.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate the provider had established and operated robust systems and processes to gather, analyse and respond to people’s feedback about the quality and safety of the home. Over the previous 12 months, there had been one satisfaction survey completed with 9 people and 6 relatives, however no actions or follow up were recorded from this survey. There was a lack of resident and relative meetings to enable people to provide feedback; in the previous 12 months, only 2 resident meetings had taken place.

Furthermore, we reviewed evidence of 1 complaint in January 2025, which had been raised by a person living in the home. We observed they were still experiencing the same issues when we visited. This person told us they had not felt listened to.

Family members told us they would feel able to raise concerns with the management team if they needed to, however most had not attended any relative meetings or were unaware when they were next scheduled for.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Medicines were not always given to people as per prescription instructions, therefore there was a risk that people’s health conditions were not properly managed. For example, a medicine prescribed to treat constipation was not correctly given to one person between 21 February and 4 March 2025.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

A lack of meaningful activities left people without stimulation. Staff failed to engage people in conversations or activities of their choice. People were not always supported to communicate and therefore were at risk of social isolation. One family member also provided similar feedback.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The quality of care plans regarding end-of-life preferences varied but were generally task-oriented and lacked detailed information about individual wishes. Some people had no end-of-life care plan in place, providing no evidence they had been supported in future planning. Staff confirmed they had not received training in end-of-life care, which was also reflected in the training matrix.