Elite Support Providers Ltd

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 safe with staff as staff had undertaken safeguarding training and knew how to report any concerns. People had information in their care plans relating to their individual risks which helped staff provide safe care. There were sufficient staff to provide care to people and relative’s said they had never had a missed call. Although staff received medicines training and had their competencies assessed annually, we found not everyone’s medicines records were accurate. We found one person’s did not always have all of their medicines listed on their medicine administration record. We have referred to this more in our key question of well-led.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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.

Staff received safeguarding training and knew who to report any concerns to. They told us, “I will tell the manager and then the manager will deal with everything and I will write it down myself. If the manager was not doing anything, I am going to call social services” and, “I know what to do and who to call.” Staff understood the different types of abuse that may occur. A staff member said, “We have to keep people safe from harm or neglect. There is physical, verbal and sexual abuse. If we see this, we inform management and call the local authority.”

Relative’s felt their family members were safe with staff. A relative told us, “Yes, the young girls in the morning [person’s name] is used to them and is happy.”

Processes were in place and effective to ensure people were protected form harm and abuse. The registered manager shared concerns with CQC in line with their requirements of registration. Although there had been no incidents relating to safeguarding for people receiving care in the community, the registered manager had informed CQC where there was a concern involving an ex staff member.

We were unable to speak with people as part of this inspection. However, one relative did not express concern in relation to this aspect of their family member's care.

Staff had a wish to keep people safe. They told us, “Our first priority is to keep people safe. If someone was not responding, I would call an ambulance. But [person’s name] lives with their family, so there is always someone around.” A second staff member said, “I know from facial expression. I would call an ambulance. I would know if she has had a hypo, she would need insulin. Or if she had a hyper, then what do to. I would ring the next of kin if need be.”

Each person had a care plan which recorded information about them as well as information relating to any associated risks. This included information about health conditions and how these may affect the person. One person was diabetic and there was information for staff on how to recognise the signs of Hyperglycemia (blood sugars too high) or Hypoglycemia (blood sugars too low).

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff told us they felt there were enough of them to provide care to people. A staff member said, “There is enough time. [Provider] is very good at giving us time.” Staff felt well trained. They said they had undertaken a large amount of training and they felt it was appropriate for their role. They told us, “I love the training. Every year we have updates. It is nice to have the training but we need a lot of experience and we learn every day.” The registered manager told us, “We have generally two staff who cover the community care calls. They all drive and we allow travel time between calls. These are permanent staff. We use a system for staff to log in and out and I am always keeping an eye on timings.”

People were cared for by a sufficient number of staff. Relatives felt there were sufficient staff. A relative said, “Never missed a call, always here on time.” There were sufficient staff to care for people receiving care in their own homes. Staff rotas showed staffing levels were in line with what he had been told there would be.

Recruitment documentation was not maintained well and as such when we reviewed the employment records for five staff, we found information on job applications or health declarations was incomplete and some staff had not provided two references. Where references were provided these were not always from the most recent employer. There was also no evidence of a Disclosure and Barring Service check for one staff member to help ensure they were suitable to work in this type of service. Following our assessment, the registered provider was able to show us the relevant documentation. Staff rotas were planned to help ensure people received the care they needed, when they needed it. A manager told us, “The registered manager monitors staff time keeping through their electronic care planning system. This meant they would be able to see if a staff member had not arrived at a call. The registered manager told us they did not provide out of hours arrangements as people receiving care in the community had morning calls only. They told us, “We have given people details of the Bracknell and Hampshire alarm system.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff told us they administered medicines to some people, but others took their own medicines. A staff member said, “[Person’s name] we monitor and observe medicines for her only as she takes and orders them herself.” Staff said they took an on-line course for medicines and had their competencies checked annually to help ensure they continued to follow good practice.

People did not express any concerns in the way they were supported to take their medicines by staff.

Staff did not always follow robust medicines recording practices. We found a medicine for one person was recorded in December 2023 and February 2024 on their medicine administration record (MAR) but had been missed off their MAR for January. However, this person had capacity to take their own medicines, so the risks of not receiving the medicines they required was low. Only trained staff administered and dispensed people’s medicines. Staff undertook training before they administer medicines and had an annual competency check to help ensure they were following good practices.