Elite Homecare

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always have their immediate needs met and staff did not always feel well-supported.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People told us staff were kind and considerate when delivering care and support. We received only positive comments about staff from people. One person told us, “They [staff] are good company, the two that come here, and we usually have a laugh.” Another person told us, “[Staff name] is lovely and she treats me very well and is so polite.”

All people we spoke with also confirmed staff treated them with dignity and respect during care delivery. One person commented, “They [staff] always ask if I want the curtains closed.” Another person told us, “They [staff] help me and they treat me with respect.”

Staff also told us of their friendships with people they supported and talked fondly of them. One staff member told us, “The people I go to are fantastic, we sit and have a chat.”

Staff 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.

Although we found records demonstrated a lack of person-centred information and input from people in care plans and reviews, we found staff provided care to people in a way that treated them as individuals. We received only positive feedback about their treatment from people receiving care.

People told us staff sought their consent, gave them choices around their care and ensured they could make decisions for themselves. One person told us, “I pick my own clothes.” Another person told us, “They [staff] always ask permission” and “They [staff] even ask if they can switch the light on.”

Staff gave us mixed feedback around how much information they had access to about people within the care documents in their home. One staff member told us, “They [care plans] are not always there. If a person is new, I might get to the property and there is no file.” However, another staff member told us, “There seems to be information in it [care file] as I read through it.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We found people had little control and input in their care plans and reviews. We saw no evidence people had been involved in designing their package of care. People were not supported to understand their rights by using different ways to communicate. We saw no detailed information in people’s care plans about individual communication needs and no evidence their understanding was reviewed throughout their care and treatment. We became aware that one person had very specific communication needs in terms of accessing information; however, there was no information in their care plan relating to this. Another person’s communication needs were recorded as “fine” with not further information included.

However, feedback from people demonstrated during care delivery, care staff encouraged people to be independent with their care needs. One person told us, “I do a lot myself. If they [staff] see I'm struggling, they will ask if I need help. They are very good and they don’t rush me.” Another person told us, “They [staff] are very good at this [promoting independence] and I want to be more independent.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

People told us staff did not always turn up to their scheduled care calls and were left without care and support. Four out of 7 people we spoke with told us they had experienced missed care calls from the service. We found no evidence robust actions had been taken by the management team to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. We found no evidence people had been harmed due to these omissions; however, people had been placed at the risk of harm from not receiving care and support when required. Most people told us staff generally stayed the time allocated for the care calls; however, people were happy with the calls. One person told us, “Sometimes they [staff] will finish early but they do what they have to do before they go.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We received mixed feedback from staff around support they received from the management team. Some staff felt supported in their work in general; however, some said they felt unsupported in their role. Staff told us they often had a problem getting hold of management as they did not always answer their telephones and they could not contact the provider before 10 am. There were no robust management on-call arrangements in place, so staff told us they mostly contacted each other if they needed help. We were told staff were expected to complete training in their own time and had to cover 3 shadowing shifts at the start of their employment without any pay. Staff had not received supervision or appraisal with the management team to ensure they felt supported in the role and with their wellbeing.