- Care home
Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 1a Upper Brighton Road
Assessment report published 11 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We assessed this service during 30th June – 17th July 2026. Elysium Care Partnership 1A Upper Brighton Road is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 9 people. The service supports people with a learning disability and autistic people. At the time of the assessment, 9 people were living at the service.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
The home did not have a registered manager in post. However, the home manager was supported by other managers, including a quality lead, positive behaviour specialist and a safeguarding lead who were all involved in supporting the service. We saw examples of staff being flexible and adapting support when people’s plans changed, such as adjusting activities and supporting individual appointments. We saw that staff knew people well and understood their communication needs. Relatives also described staff knowing people well and felt that people were safe and well cared for.
However, some areas of the service did not consistently promote choice, autonomy and independence in line with right support, right care and right culture. We found restrictions in place restricting people’s freedom of access to some communal areas and bedroom doors were locked when empty. Most people did not have keys to their rooms. CCTV was used in communal areas, but the rationale and proportionality of these arrangements were not clear from the evidence available. Some relatives told us they wanted people to have more freedom, such as increased freedom of access to water, drinks and snacks, and more frequent meaningful activities, whilst others felt the restrictions in place were appropriate to keep their loved ones safe.
Multiple record keeping created duplication and meant some information was out of date or difficult to audit. This meant although staff may have known people well, records did not always show risks were reviewed, monitored and followed up consistently. We found 3 breaches in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and governance.
The provider had governance systems in place, but these were not always effective in identifying and addressing concerns in a timely way. The provider was aware of most of the concerns highlighted during the assessment, but they had not implemented their plan to fully address the concerns found. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives were generally positive about the safety of the service and the kindness of staff. Relatives told us they felt people were safe, well cared for and treated with dignity and respect. One relative said, “I believe my [relative] is very safe in the home”. Another said, “It is a safe and secure environment which was a priority for us.” We observed people being supported by staff who knew them well. People were seen spending time in their rooms, communal areas and the garden. Staff communicated with people verbally, through body language and using Makaton signs. This helped people who did not use verbal communication to make choices and engage with support.
People’s relatives and representatives generally described the service as safe and caring. Relatives said people appeared happy, settled and comfortable returning to the home after family visits. One relative said, “My [relative] seems happy when they come home, and happy to go back to the home, and that assures us they are happy being there.” Another relative said, “My [relative] seems fine and they are happy in the home.” This showed that people’s presentation and responses gave families some reassurance about their day-to-day experiences.
People were supported by staff who knew their routines, communication styles, family relationships, health needs and preferred activities. Staff described how they used communication tools, body language and visual cues to understand people’s choices and consent. Relatives told us staff communicated well about some aspects of care.
People had opportunities to go out and take part in individual activities. People and staff feedback referred to walks, horse riding, home visits, aromatherapy sessions, and other planned community activities, such as bowling and swimming.
However, some relatives said they were not always clear what people did day to day or how often they accessed activities. One relative said, “I am not completely sure what they are doing on a weekly basis and how much they are accessing things in the community.” Another relative said, “I do not think they do enough in terms of activities.” This meant relatives did not always have enough information to understand whether people’s lives were active, meaningful and personalised.
Some relatives raised concerns about restrictions in the home. One relative said, “I would like to see the kitchen open and more freedom around the house.” Another said, “I really do not like the locked kitchen door.” These restrictions meant that peoples independence and everyday choice were not always promoted. The provider had already identified these issues and had plans to reduce this practice, but this had not yet been implemented.