Elite Privilege Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care plans were well detailed and included specific information about each person’s likes, needs and preferences. For example, the care plan detailed visit times and preferences.

People’s records we reviewed included a descriptive guide regarding specific treatment the person needed. For example, if a person had multiple conditions, there was a document which detailed knowledge on each condition. Guidance was in place for medical conditions such as seizures, cerebral palsy, food diets and learning disabilities.

Records we reviewed included a detailed risk assessment for the home environment, the person and any risks related to the care provided. For example, managers completed risk assessments around the external environment, what the risks were and what control measures were in place. This included fire safety, pets, the persons health conditions, sensory impairment and included the persons mental health. We saw evidence of peoples care plans and risk assessments updated following any changes.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The provider had systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date with national legislation. Managers were part of external networks which ensured they kept up to date with new legislation and changes. Managers told us they regularly completed risk assessments and equipment checks to ensure they followed national guidance.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. For example, care plans we reviewed included detailed histories and people’s care and treatment needs. Care plans also detailed people’s preferences which were reviewed and updated following any changes to people’s care and treatment.

We reviewed meeting minutes and saw examples of collaboration with external professionals and teams. Staff gave examples of working in partnerships with people’s occupational therapists and education teams to ensure people received appropriate care and treatment.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. We did not see evidence of how people were supported to live healthier lives through diet or exercise. There was no evidence of this within the care and treatment records or the daily handover records. Managers told us staff took people for walks or jogging and encouraged exercise but there was no evidence of this. The provider told us they would make improvements following the inspection.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care plans included peoples care, and treatment needs as well as their health conditions and there was monitoring of people’s care. For example, a person at risk of falls, all falls had been recorded and improvements noted. The service had a falls prevention plan in place to monitor the persons outcomes. There was evidence of the service liaising with GP and external services to improve care for people.

However, there was a person who was at risk of pressure sores. The service did not document how often the person required repositioning, what position the person had been in previously and who had completed the repositioning during the night. Staff were not documenting any outcomes in relating to repositioning. Since the inspection, the management team have provided assurance they will make improvements around repositioning.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff completed pre-admission consent forms for all people who used the service. This included if people gave consent for their care and treatment or if they lacked capacity to make decisions about their care. There was a space for people to sign the consent form to say they had agreed to the decision made, however not all forms were signed by people.