Elite Privilege Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, the provider identified shortfalls in documentation and took actions to embed improvements.

All people we spoke to told us their loved ones felt safe with the care provided from staff.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. For example, we saw joined up care between the provider and occupational therapist, social workers and schools.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff we spoke to understood how to safeguard adults and children from abuse and were confident in raising any concerns with the management team. Staff were aware with the policies and procedures in relation to safety and safeguarding.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. All care plans were person centred and included details about people’s histories, physical health conditions and care and treatment.

All care plans we reviewed had contingency plans in place for adverse weather conditions and emergency evacuation details for people. This included a priority level based on what support levels people had in their homes.

The provider also had emergency contact details for people using the service in the case of an emergency, for example, a gas leak or power cut.

There was clear involvement from relatives within care and treatment records and peoples care plans were written in their own words, however, it was not clear how people using the service were involved regularly in their care and treatment.

People using the provider were supported in their own homes. The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment by assessing risks relating to each person’s home. This included environmental risks assessments which covered the internal and external areas of the property for example, pets, fire safety and gas and electricity. The provider ensured there were contact details in place for any emergency environmental issues. The risk assessment also included guidance on how to identify risks, what measures had been taken to reduce the risk and actions to take if a risk was identified. This helped to ensure the safe environments for staff and people.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

All staff received relevant training to fulfil their role, including specific training relating to learning disabilities. Staff had access to team meetings and were provided with opportunities to raise any issues or concerns they had in meetings.

Managers reviewed the staffing rota and provided safe staffing levels including increasing staffing when it was needed. For example, we saw evidence of increased staffing levels at the request of staff and family. The service did not use any agency staff.

The provider followed safe recruitment of staffing and ensured all relevant checks and written assessments were completed prior to employment. Supervision records confirmed that all staff had regular supervision and annual appraisals with management to support their development. Supervision records provided staff the opportunity to reflect on their strengths and improvements they needed for their roles. Managers completed spot checks to ensure care was delivered in line with guidelines and policies.

The provider had an infection control policy which all staff had access to. Training was also completed by staff in infection control. Staff were aware of the risks of infection and knew how to detect and control the risk of spreading infections. Staff told us they were supplied with sufficient supplies of PPE from the provider to assist in reducing IPC. People we spoke to told us the staff maintained cleanliness, removed waste and used PPE appropriately.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs and preferences. Staff had completed relevant medication training, including first aid training. Managers assessed medication competencies for staff.

Staff completed Medication Administration Record (MAR) charts, however, staff did not record risks relating to people’s allergies, despite these being identified in peoples risk assessments. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines emphasises the importance of noting allergies for people on MAR charts.

The MAR charts did not note time specific medication. For example, some medication such as paracetamol requires doses to be spaced out every 4 hours and the dosage varies between 1 to 2 tablets. Staff did not document the times paracetamol was given nor did they document how many tablets people were given as per NICE guidelines. This placed people at risk of harm.