Elysium Care Partnerships Limited - 1a Upper Brighton Road

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 Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 routinely ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records contained detailed information about people’s communication needs, behaviour support, interests, family relationships, health needs, eating and drinking requirements, finances, sexual safety, epilepsy support, night-time routines and community access. Staff and relatives told us support was generally tailored to people’s individual needs, preferences and routines.

Staff knew people well and demonstrated an understanding of how people communicated. They used personalised approaches, including using picture exchange communication system (PECS), Makaton and individual signs used by people. Staff also recognised the importance of observing body language and other non-verbal cues to understand people’s wishes and needs. One staff member told us, “Most people are non-verbal, so we use PECS and Makaton, and we learn their own special Makaton. We look at their body language and try to understand visual clues.”

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.

People received support with personal care, activities, medicines, health appointments, and community access. Staffing arrangements included planned enhanced support where required, and people accessed mostly individual activities such as walks, shopping, swimming, horse riding, and aromatherapy sessions.

The service had arrangements for positive behaviour support, including specialist practitioners, and training. Staff described using shared approaches to reduce anxiety, avoid triggers and support people’s quality of life. Staff were able to change plans when needed, showing flexibility in day-to-day care provision.

Relatives described the service as meeting people’s needs overall. One said their [relative] was fully supported, especially when going out in the community with 2-to-1 support. Another said staff supported their [relative] to spend time on their own.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We found a good standard in providing information. The provider had accessible feedback processes for residents, relatives and staff, and the information was analysed by the organisation. The service had an Accessible Information Standards policy, and staff used communication tools to help people understand options and express preferences.

Staff described using visual clues and family knowledge to support decision making. This helped people who did not use verbal communication to receive information in a way they could understand. The service also had easy read information available for safe and therapeutic management of violence and aggression.

Relatives gave mixed feedback about communication, but some described good routine contact.

The provider acknowledged that communication with relatives about activities could improve and had plans to introduce more family activities.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Staff used individual communication methods and relatives described staff understanding people well. People were involved in staff interviews, and the manager said residents were prepared for meetings with prospective staff. This helped people have some influence over who supported them.

Relatives said they felt able to raise concerns, and some reported improved communication had improved recently. One relative said, “I know how to raise any concerns and who to talk to.” This showed people and families had routes to share feedback.

The provider had feedback processes in place for people, their relatives and staff, and this information was analysed by the organisation.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had access to community activities and appointments, and support was planned around individual needs. The service planned staffing to ensure ratios met people’s needs, and staff supported people to access GP appointments, and individual leisure activities. The manager described considering cultural and religious needs, and celebrations.

However, access was not always equitable within the home due to the restrictions. Drinks and snacks were not freely available in communal areas, and some people did not have keys to their rooms, which meant they relied on staff to support access their private spaces.

Relatives also described concerns about unequal access to their relative’s preferred activities. We observed people going out, but relatives told us they were not always sure how often this happened, and some wanted more frequent access to activities and developing life skills.

Staff and leaders did not always demonstrate how they actively sought, listened to and acted on information about people who may be at greater risk of experiencing inequalities in their care and support. This meant the provider could not always be assured that people’s individual experiences and outcomes were consistently considered and addressed.

The service supported people from a range of cultural and religious backgrounds. The registered manager described how people’s cultural preferences, dietary requirements and religious needs were respected. Staff reflected a diverse workforce and were encouraged to promote people’s rights, choices and independence. The service had also considered the needs of one female person living in a predominantly male household by ensuring female staff were available to support them, including during the night.

People experienced varying levels of family involvement and advocacy. Some relatives maintained regular contact, while others had less frequent involvement. Staff planned activities and support based on people’s individual preferences and needs, both within the home and in the wider community.

However, systems to monitor and evidence equitable experiences and outcomes were not sufficiently developed. Records did not clearly demonstrate how people’s experiences were reviewed, measured or compared to identify and address potential inequalities. While people’s sensory needs were considered on an individual basis, sensory equipment was generally stored away and there was no dedicated sensory space within the home or garden. This may have limited opportunities for some people to access sensory support independently.

The provider gathered feedback using accessible formats; however, it was not always clear how people’s views were analysed or acted upon, particularly in relation to food choices and activities. As a result, the provider could not consistently demonstrate that people were receiving equal opportunities to influence their support, participate in meaningful activities, or achieve positive outcomes in line with their preferences and aspirations.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

People were supported to plan for significant life events and changes in a way that reflected their individual needs, preferences and aspirations. This gave people sufficient time to consider options, express their views and make informed decisions about their future. Staff recognised that changes could be unsettling for some people and worked proactively to prepare them through personalised planning and ongoing support.

The provider had systems in place to promote continuity of care and ensure important information was available when needed. For example, people had hospital passports which contained key information about their communication needs, health conditions, preferences and support requirements. This helped healthcare professionals to understand people’s needs and deliver care that was personalised and responsive, particularly during emergency admissions or unplanned healthcare appointments.

Relatives told us the provider took a proactive approach to planning for future changes and involved them appropriately in discussions. They described how staff considered people’s individual strengths, anxieties and coping mechanisms when preparing for transitions or changes in circumstances. Individual strategies were developed to help people understand and manage change, reducing anxiety and promoting positive outcomes. One relative told us staff planned and gradually introduced changes to help their family member feel comfortable and secure.