Elite Privilege Care Limited

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.

Requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 tailored care and treatment records which included people’s treatment choices and how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Staff understood people’s individual care needs and followed care plans to deliver care. Care plans and risk assessments were well detailed and included exactly how the person wanted care to be delivered. For example, care plans included if people would like their door to be knocked on, how to greet the person and what personal care they wanted to be delivered first. Staff we spoke to understood the individual needs of people using the service.

Care plans included people’s preferences when receiving care. For example, for social calls, it included where the person wanted to go, what they liked to do and what transport was available to them.

People we spoke to told us they could choose when their care was delivered and were able to make changes when they wanted to. Relatives felt confident the service would make changes depending on preferences to support people.

However, there was no documentation to support people with a learning disability were given opportunities to be involved in their care. Since the inspection, the provider has told us they will make improvements.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff and relatives gave examples of supporting people within the community with other health needs. For example, we saw joined up care with younger people, their schools and social workers. Relatives gave us examples of staff supporting them with healthcare needs and contacting external services in relating to health issues. One relative told us, “[Staff] address concerns” in relation to identifying healthcare needs and contacting a professional for further input.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. It was unclear how people with learning disabilities were supported in their care and treatment. Staff we spoke with told us they would identify gestures and body movements as communication methods. However, there was no evidence to support people were provided with information about their care and treatment tailored to meet their needs. For example, we saw no easy read documentation within peoples care and treatment records and no involvement from the person in their records. Staff told us they would seek preferences about people’s choice from relatives or next of kin. Following the inspection, managers took this onboard and identified a need for improving communication methods.

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

Managers told us they sent out annual surveys for relatives and people to completed annually, in line with the providers policy. However, the last survey we reviewed was in 2024. The response rate for the survey in 2024 was low. However, the provider made efforts to discuss care packages with family and people who used the service. For example, people’s records we reviewed and included a care review form to document discussion between the service manager and the person or their relative, about the care received from the service. People who were able to express their wishes and feelings verbally had the opportunity to provide feedback and request areas for improvement. We saw evidence whereby the provider made improvements to people’s care following these reviews.

However, we saw no evidence of the service tailoring feedback forms for people with a learning disability. For people with a learning disability, staff told us they relied on the persons next of kin for information about the persons choices. This meant people were not always supported to make their own choices or asked their own opinion.

Relatives and people told us they were involved in care planning. If people using the service made a request, staff would make changes to reflect the needs and choices of people. However, 4 people we spoke to told us they weren’t sure if they had a care plan or when the last review was.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service had an on-call system in place for when it was closed to ensure people had access to staff in an emergency. The service provided people and their relatives emergency contact numbers when they joined the service. All staff had access to the registered manger and nominated individuals contact details in case of an emergency.

People and relatives told us staff arrived on time for visits and that they had regular staff attending. One relative said, “If [relative] has a toothache or if something is not well with [them]. [They] doesn’t speak but they work out what is wrong. [Relative] makes noises. If [relative] has marks on the body they let me know. [Relative] goes to 2 day centres and they will let me know if they see something that wasn’t there in the morning [for example a rash].”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff told us they treated people fairly and equally, in a way they would wish to be treated. However, the service did not obtain information from people with a learning disability. Since the inspection, the provider gave examples of supporting previous people who used the service who were non-verbal with a range of communication needs. However, these people were not using the service at the time of inspection.

People’s records contained a detailed information about how to support people including their wishes and how their social needs were to be met. The records included information about what mattered to them and were personalised. However, there was no information within the care plans about people’s long-term goals. For example, there was no end-of-life planning information in place for a person who was on end-of-life.