Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 1a Upper Brighton Road

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect.; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We found a good standard in kindness, compassion and dignity. Relatives consistently described staff as respectful and caring. One relative said, “They respect my [relative’s] privacy and dignity.” Another relative said, “They are treated well and with respect.”

We observed positive interactions between people and staff. For example, one person took their support worker’s hand and leaned their head on the support worker’s shoulder, indicating familiarity and trust. Another person was supported at a discrete distance in the garden. Staff enabled people to rest in private, spend time in their rooms and engage with activities in a calm environment.

Staff spoke about their work in compassionate terms. One staff member said, “It is not about the money, it is about giving the best we can.” Staff described knowing people’s preferences, routines and communication styles.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s rooms were personalised and reflected their interests, family networks and preferred activities. Staff knew people’s preferred individual activities such as watching planes, theme park days out, swimming, bowling, and family visits.

Records contained detailed personal information, and staff described personalised work with people, for example reducing co-dependence and anxiety management strategies.

Relatives also described personalised support. One relative explained how the service had planned with them how to support their relative through transitions to increase resilience and flexibility. Another relative said the person felt the service was their home and was excited to show visitors around.

The provider did not consistently uphold people’s rights to independence, choice and control, resulting in restrictions that limited people’s ability to make decisions about their daily lives and exercise autonomy within their home.

We identified significant concerns regarding independence, choice and control. The service operated a restrictive environment which limited people’s freedom and ability to make everyday choices.A blanket approach was applied to restrictions across the home, including locked areas, CCTV surveillance and door sensor monitoring, without clear evidence that these measures were individually assessed and proportionate to each person’s needs. The kitchen remained locked, there were no communal facilities for accessing drinks or snacks, and people were required to seek staff support to access food and refreshments. In addition, most people did not have keys to their bedrooms, and rooms were routinely locked when unoccupied. These arrangements restricted people’s freedom of movement, access to their own living spaces, and ability to make ordinary day-to-day choices independently.

Feedback from relatives reflected similar concerns. One relative told us, “I would like to see more freedom around the home to access drinks and snacks and change clothes as often as my [relative] wants.” They also questioned the extent to which people were genuinely able to make choices, describing decision-making as a process of “guided direction” rather than one led by the individual.

While the provider had developed a restrictive practice reduction plan and managers were reviewing restrictions with support from the specialist team, improvements had not been implemented at the time of our assessment. People therefore remained subject to restrictions that did not always reflect a person-centred approach to care and support.

The provider did not always ensure people’s immediate needs were consistently recognised, recorded and reviewed. This meant the provider could not always demonstrate people received responsive care that reflected their changing needs.

Staff were able to describe how they responded to people’s immediate health, emotional and day-to-day needs. Records showed examples of staff taking action in response to changes in people’s presentation. For example, staff supported a person to take an evening walk after observing changes in their behaviour and followed guidance set out within their support plan. Staff told us they recognised signs that people may be distressed or unwell through changes in behaviour, body language, eating patterns or refusals to engage. This was particularly important for people who did not communicate verbally.

Although there were examples of good practice, records did not always evidence that people’s changing needs were consistently reviewed and reflected in their care documentation.For example, care plans and risk assessments had identical review dates, indicating that whilst these documents had been routinely reviewed, they had not always been updated when risks or care needs changed. This meant there was not always a clear record of how changes in people’s needs had been assessed, responded to and communicated to staff.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported by managers and able to raise concerns. One staff member described managers as open, easy to approach and supportive. Another staff member said they felt able to make suggestions and that managers listened. Staff also described feeling respected, valued and treated equally.

The provider had systems to support staff wellbeing, including supervision, team meetings, debriefs, welfare checks after incidents, speak-up guardians and employee assistance routes. Supervision records included space to discuss wellbeing, safeguarding, relationships, learning and development. This helped staff reflect on their work and access support.

There were some pressures. Staff said last-minute sickness could make shifts feel difficult and relatives linked staff shortages with cancelled activities. However, staff generally described good support, and the service used familiar bank staff instead of agency workers. This helped maintain continuity for people and reduced the impact of staffing pressures.