Ellerslie House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and were confident to raise concerns if required. If care had not gone to plan this was reviewed and any lessons learnt, shared with staff. Risks associated with people’s health conditions and support needs were assessed monitored and mitigated effectively. People mostly received their medications as prescribed, when errors had been made, these had been identified, investigated and lessons learnt shared with the team. Infection prevention and control was safely managed, and people lived in a clean home. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough skilled staff to meet people’s needs.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives told us they received feedback following accidents and incidents. One relative told us, “They did make one medication error, they informed me straight away, they told me what they would do to prevent this happening again.”

We received feedback from 12 members of staff, most staff told us they received feedback following incidents and where needed received additional support and training. The manager told us that they reviewed accidents and incidents, discussed the incident with those involved and looked at what could be done differently in the future to prevent the accident or incident.

The home kept detailed records of accidents and incidents that occurred. The records were reviewed by management and any learning shared with teams using the electronic care record. Accidents and incidents were a regular item on the team meeting agenda.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People said they felt safe, one person told us, “I like living here and staff help me keep safe and I am able to tell the manager if I am not happy”. Relatives told us they felt people were kept safe and they were able to raise concerns with the manager and felt these would be dealt with properly.

Staff had a good understanding of the types and signs of abuse; staff were able to describe the processes in place should they have any safeguarding concerns. The manager gave us some examples of the action they had taken to investigate potential safeguarding concerns, how the situations were resolved, feedback to relatives and staff and any lessons learnt established and shared.

On our site visit we observed people being supported in line with their risk assessments and support plans. Staff were observed to recognise when a person’s needs were changing. For example, they encouraged people to engage in activities in another area of the home, giving the person the environment and support they needed. The staff team all worked well together to ensure the people who live in the home were not impacted by the situation and reduced the risk of a safeguarding incident occurring.

The home had robust systems in place to enable people, relatives and staff to raise safeguarding concerns. The service kept clear, accurate records of any potential safeguarding incidents, including a safeguarding log and outcome form. The home had robust policies and procedures in place detailing the action to be taken if a safeguarding incident occurred.

People told us they were involved in managing their risks. One person showed us a menu plan he had completed with the support of his keyworker. He told us that he was able to change the items on the menu, but the menu helped him make good choices to prevent ill health. Most people’s relatives told us they were involved with how risk is managed and can share ideas with the manager.

Staff told us they supported people to review their risk assessments whilst they were supporting them with the activity. This information is then feedback to the person completing the review. The manager told us that people who used the service all had different ways of communicating. Where people were unable to verbally communicate their views, staff observed their body language and vocalisations, these were recorded and reviewed and used to update people’s assessments. Where appropriate people’s relatives were also given the opportunity to contribute to the assessments.

Staff knew people well; they interacted with them and engaged them in activities in ways that worked for that person. We observed some people make decisions using their body language and facial expressions, this reaction was recognised by staff who then responded to that person’s wishes. We also observed staff supporting someone to complete their own feedback and enter this into their records using voice recording.

The provider had robust policies and procedures in place to ensure people were involved in how their risks were being managed. Staff and the management team had good understanding of these and how they were implemented. The service had records of where people’s relatives had been given the opportunity to contribute to people’s assessments and any amendments that had been made.

People told us they liked the home and the garden. Relatives told us they liked the big lounge and big garden as it gave people plenty of space.

Staff told us there were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and upkeep of the premises. For example, a member of staff told us how they undertook checks on the environment and equipment to make sure it was safe. Other staff members showed good understanding of how to reduce the likelihood of a fire breaking out and what action they would take if this was to occur.

The home was secure, and we observed checks taking place to ensure only authorised people could enter the premises. Maintenance was readily available and were on site.

Health and safety policies and procedures were in place which staff understood and followed. Health and safety audits took place regularly and any areas for action were addressed. Regular checks of the environment and the equipment were undertaken by the maintenance team, the manager or an external specialist. Records were in place to demonstrate this.

People told us they liked the staff and felt safe. A person told us “They are all good and help me do stuff and we have a laugh”. Most relatives told us the staff are good and they have a good relationship with them.

Staff were able to describe the risks to people and what they do to prevent injury to the person. Most staff told us they had training, and this was helpful to them and provided them with the knowledge and skills they required to work safely. Staff told us there were usually enough staff to support people with their assessed needs. The manager was able to describe robust recruitment and induction processes that were in place. The service obtained references and enhanced DBS checks that were obtained prior to staff working at the service. Risk assessments were in place and were robust where a potential risk had been identified. Staff completed online training in a wide range of subjects and completed shadow shifts prior to working with people on a 1:1 basis. The manager had completed risk assessments for staff who had not completed additional face to face training and dates had already been booked to ensure staff receive this training as soon as possible.

We observed staff supporting people within the home. Staff supported people in a way that met their preferences but also responded to their needs and minimised risk. For example, we observed 2 staff supporting a person, they gave the person space to engage with others but were able to redirect the person when necessary to prevent the person entering other people’s bedrooms. The staff used verbal redirection and encouraged them to engage in an activity in another area of the home.

The provider has their own recruitment and HR team. There was a robust policy and procedure in place for recruiting new staff. There was a robust induction process in place. Agency staff had an induction, and the service had confirmation of the agency staff training, experience and pre-employment checks. Staff receive online training prior to working with people, there is also additional face to face training bespoke to the service.

People told us that they were supported to clean their home, and they like to do this. One person told us,” I decorated my room and staff help me keep it looking nice and clean.” Most relatives told us the home was clean and tidy, relatives told us that people were supported to clean but think they should complete a deep clean behind heavy furniture.

People told us that they were supported to clean their home, and they like to do this. One person told us,” I decorated my room and staff help me keep it looking nice and clean.” Most relatives told us the home was clean and tidy, relatives told us that people were supported to clean but think they should complete a deep clean behind heavy furniture.

We saw all areas of the home were clean, staff used appropriate cleaning materials to prevent cross contamination. Soap and paper towels were available to ensure good hand hygiene. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately. We saw a small chip on the kitchen worktop, this was rectified immediately.

There was a robust infection prevention and control policy and procedure in place. Cleaning schedules were available, and staff had a good understanding of these.

People told us they were supported to have their medication by staff in a way they liked and at the correct time.

Medicines were administered by staff who had been trained and deemed as competent to administer them. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to order, administer, store and dispose of medicines safely. Staff told us they thought they had the right training to support people with different needs effectively.

There was a robust medicines policy and procedure in place. This was accessible to staff who demonstrated a good understanding of it. Regular medicine audits took place to ensure safety, and the service had recently had an audit carried out by a community pharmacist. This showed medicines were safely managed. Risk assessments were in place and provided effective guidance about how to manage people’s medicines safely.