Ellerslie House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The provider had effective governance systems in place that had already identified the short falls we found during this assessment. There was a service development plan in place and actions were assigned to staff, were being monitored by the manager, reviewed by the operations manager and completed in a timely manner. Staff had clear roles and responsibilities and had a clear understanding of these. People and staff shared positive feedback about the manager and the operations manager. Staff told us they felt able to speak up if they had any concerns.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us the manager is inclusive, previous inequality within the service towards ethnic minority staff and people had been identified and resolved. For example, a staff member told us; “Everyone is treated equally, with respect and dignity. Residents [people] are involved in their day to day care and choices are listened to and upheld”. Staff told us, the team worked together to achieve the desired goal. For example, one member of staff told us, “Effective teamwork is facilitated through multidisciplinary meetings, clear roles and information, secure communication, collaborative planning, training, leadership support, and quality improvement initiatives”. The manager had a good understanding of, right support, right care, right culture and this had been embedded throughout the service. “Right support, right care, right culture”, is CQC’s statutory guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service was supporting people with a learning disability and those living with autism, in line with this guidance.

The provider had robust policies and procedures in place, these ensured staff and the manager where supporting people in line with the principles of person-centred care. The staff had received learning disability and autism training, we found this to have been effective as staff were able to demonstrate their understanding. Staff were able to demonstrate they understood people’s unique needs and preferences and supported them accordingly. This meant that people were receiving personalised support. The service had a robust auditing process and had a service development plan in place. The service had identified further opportunities and was planning on working with a national organisation to become an autism accredited service.

Feedback from staff about the manager was mostly positive. Comments included, “[Manager] is both supportive and knowledgeable. They provide clear guidance, are approachable, and always make themselves available to discuss any concerns or ideas for improving care” and “Yes, [my manager] is approachable, experienced, and offers guidance when needed, which fosters a positive work environment”.

There was a new management team in post, who were aware of the priorities for the service and were working towards embedding improvements and changes in systems and processes, this included a new digital system for medication to enhance oversight.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and were confident they would be listened to, and their concerns acted upon. The manager and the provider were very responsive to feedback throughout the assessment. They showed a passion in providing high quality, safe support and treatment.

The service had safe and effective systems in place. Staff were knowledgeable of the process. This meant that staff would feel confident raising concerns. The service had reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority and to CQC. The service was working proactively with professionals to minimise the risk of further safeguarding concerns of a similar nature.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff told us there had been recent improvements in the governance of the home. Comments included “The manager provides outstanding support and knowledge, promoting staff development and quality care. Having the deputy manager on the floor to assist the staff, means she responds to most of the issues before it gets to the manager. And “My manager is approachable, experienced, and offers guidance when needed, which fosters a positive work environment”.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service. Regular checks and audits were completed, and actions were added to the service development plan to ensure continuous improvement. Effective communication systems were in place to ensure staff were kept up to date with any changes to people’s support. The manager understood their responsibilities to notify CQC and other relevant authorities of any incidents that took place that affected people who used the service.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.