Ellerslie Court

Ellerslie Court is a Victorian House that has been converted into a Care Home providing accommodation and personal care for up to fourteen adults with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people living at the home. The registered provider of the service was Lotus Care Limited. This was the service’s first inspection under the new registered provider.

The service provides accommodation over four floors with the use of a passenger lift. Communal areas are on the ground floor and consist of a dining room, two sitting rooms and a conservatory. There are a range of aids and adaptations to aid people with a range of physical disabilities.

A registered manager was 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.

As part of our inspection, we checked that the service had sent is all statutory notifications that the provider is required to send us by law. We saw that we had received most notifications as required, however the registered manager had not sent in one notification to update us of the outcome of an incident. We discussed this at the time of our inspection and saw it was an error on the provider’s behalf. The provider took action straight away and we were sent this notification.

The people we spoke with told us that they liked living at the home and they felt safe. We saw there was enough staff on duty to be able to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. Staffing levels were accessed using a dependency tool to ensure sufficient numbers of staff were on shift.

Staff we spoke with were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused in any way. This involved reporting concerns to the manager in charge and whistleblowing to external organisations such as, CQC and the Local Authority.

Medication procedures were safe, and medication was only administered by staff who had received the correct training to do so. Medication was stored in line with best practice guidelines. Specialist techniques for administering medication were clearly recorded in people’s care plans.

Staff recruitment was safe. Staff were only offered positions at the home once all checks had been completed which included references and a police check.

Risk assessments contained key details with regards to how staff should offer appropriate support and reassurance for people to help mitigate risks. Accident and incident recording was thorough, and people had been appropriately referred to other clinical teams when needed.

People received support in line the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where appropriate. Where authorisations were required to lawfully deprive a person of their liberty, we saw these were requested without delay and reviewed regularly. DoLS applications were in place for people, and these were reviewed regularly.

Staff had recently undergone a new training programme, all staff training was updated according to the provider’s own mandatory training subjects. Certificates stored in a separate file confirmed that the staff had attended this training. In addition, all staff had received a supervision at least every eight weeks, and all staff had had an annual appraisal.

There was a wide range of menu choices available for people. Different diets were catered for, and there was a choice offered if people did not like the main course. We also saw fresh fruit was available in the dining room.

People told us and our observations showed that staff treated people with kindness, respect and consideration. Most of the staff had been in post for over three years, and knew the people who lived at the home well.

People were involved in the reviewing and development of their care plans were able. Family members were also involved. Where people did not have the capacity to consent to their care plans we saw that a best interest process was followed which involved the person, their key worker, and their family. This involved meeting with people who knew the person best with the person present and making complex decisions in their best interests.

Staff were able to describe how they treated people with respect and dignity. We saw various examples throughout the duration of our inspection of staff treating people with dignity, and respecting their choices and wishes.

There was a complaints process in place. This had been made available in easy read and pictorial format to help people understand the content easily. There had been no recent complaints regarding the service.

Information in care plans was person centred. Care plans also contained information about people’s backgrounds, preferences, likes and dislikes in all aspects of everyday life. As some people who lived at the home were unable to verbally communicate their views or opinions, information contained examples of how people used other ways to communicate, such as picture cards, signs and facial expressions.

There were various quality assurance procedures (checks) taking place at the home both by the registered manager and the area manager. Some audits would have benefited from being undertaken more regularly, which we raised with the registered manager at the time of inspection. However, we saw that audits were robust and information was shared with the staff around their findings.

Feedback form and the process for gathering feedback had been changed and adapted to suit the needs of the people living at the home. Feedback forms had recently been sent out, so there was no report for us to view at the time of our inspection.

Team meetings and resident meetings took place regularly. We viewed the minutes of these and people had made valuable contributions which the service had responded to.

There was a positive, homely culture at the home. Staff told us they enjoyed working there.