You are here

Archived: Elysian House Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 3 September 2015

We carried out an unannounced inspection on the 18 June 2015.

Elysian House provides short-term, therapeutic support and accommodation for 12 people experiencing a mental health crisis. The service uses a recovery model of care and support. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people using the service.

There is a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection on 2 January 2014 we found the service meeting the standards inspected.

Staff supported people to maintain their safety. Assessments were undertaken to identify any risks to a person’s safety and management plans were in place to address those risks. Staff were aware of signs and symptoms that might suggest a person is becoming unwell. People were supported as appropriate to maintain their physical and mental health. People had support plans detailing the support they needed and the support they required from staff.

Staff worked with the community mental health team to ensure support was co-ordinated and appropriate to people’s needs. On the day of our visit we observed some good interactions between staff and people living at the service. People told us that staff were caring and kind. People were given choice and their individual needs were being met by the service. Staff were caring and kind when interacting or assisting people.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy maintained. We saw that staff knocked on people’s doors and gave people time to respond before entering.

Staff encouraged people to be independent, we saw that people had access to kitchen facilities and prepared meals for themselves. People staying at the service had capacity to self-administer their own medicines. We saw that there was a system in place to keep medicines safe. The service acted immediately to ensure the well-being of one person who had run out of their medicines.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs, and had attended regular training. Staff told us that they felt supported by their manager and felt able to raise concerns. Recruitment processes ensured that staff were safe to work with people because the provider had carried out the necessary checks.

Systems for monitoring the quality of the service were effective. People were asked their views on the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 3 September 2015

The service was safe. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and actions to take to ensure people were protected from abuse.

Most people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Recruitment checks ensured staff were suitable to work at the service and meet people’s needs.



Updated 3 September 2015

The service was effective. Staff received regular supervision and training. They told us they felt supported by their manager.

People were encouraged to prepare their own meals and develop their independence.

People were referred to other healthcare professionals to assist the service with meeting their individual needs.

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2008 and Deprivation of liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and understood how this impacted on the people they were supporting.



Updated 3 September 2015

The service was caring. We saw that people were well cared for and treated with dignity and respect.

People’s likes and dislikes were recorded in their care records.

People told us that they were involved in decisions about their care.



Updated 3 September 2015

The service was responsive. People took part in activities of their choice, however, some people felt that there could be more activities.

People gave their views about the service and knew how to make a complaint.



Updated 3 September 2015

The service was well-led. People were protected from the risk of poor care and treatment because the provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

People told us that they felt able to approach the registered manager with their concerns.