Archived: Elora House

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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.

We found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

People were not always kept safe at the service. Records relating to criminal records checks showed that some staff who had been working at the service for a number of years had not had checks within the last three years. The checks help providers make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups. This meant people may be at risk of receiving care and support from unsuitable staff. Risk assessments were not up to date and did not address the risk associated with certain medical conditions for some people using the service which put people at risk of harm.

Staff did not receive regular training to enable them to carry out their role effectively. The systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided were not always robust.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. Please note that the summary section will be used to populate the CQC website. Providers will be asked to share this section with the people who use their service and the staff that work at there.

The staff were knowledgeable in recognising signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns. Incidents were reported and managed in an appropriate way. We found people were cared for by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

People were provided with a choice of food and drinks ensuring their nutritional needs were met.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The care plans contained information setting out how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. Care and support was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and staff knew people well.

Staff had good relationships with people living at the service. We observed interactions between staff and people living in the service and staff were caring and respectful to people when supporting them.

Staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported to attend meetings where they could express their views about the service.

People who lived at the service and staff felt comfortable about sharing their views and talking to the manager if they had any concerns. Staff told us the manager was always supportive. Staff demonstrated they had an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The registered manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted.

We saw evidence of systems which had been put in place to ensure staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents.

People were able to make choices and remained in control of decisions about their care and were not put at unnecessary risks.

The majority of staff were employed prior to the recruitment regulation coming into use. The registered manager was clear what would be required to comply with the regulation.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and the assessment involved them. People's views were taken into account in writing their care plans. Care plans were able to assist staff to meet people's needs.

Is the service caring?

Care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We spoke with all three people being supported by the service. We asked them their views on the staff who supported them. All of the feedback was positive. For example, 'I like the staff,' and 'The staff are nice people, helpful, and they don't shout at me.'

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with their wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People took part in activities with the home and the wider community. All the people knew how to make a complaint. They told us they had not needed to.

Is the service well-led?

This small service has introduced quality assurance systems to identify problems and address issues. Both members of staff we spoke with told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

On this visit we found there were appropriate arrangements to ensure the service met the required standards. People's personal records had been assessed to ensure that information about them was accurate and up to date. The condition and cleanliness of the building had been regularly checked. Maintenance issues had been identified and addressed. People received safe and effective support in suitable premises.

People told us they enjoyed using the service. One person said "I have no complaints, its great." People had completed feedback forms about the service. These showed they had a positive view of the support they received.

We found that people were quite happy with their routines and the services provided at Elora House. Their care and treatment was delivered in line with their assessed need and they were supported and involved to use their community. However, we found that the provider did not always protect people from the risks associated with the safe handling of medication, neither did he regularly monitor the services that were provided to them. He also failed to provide training that was specific to the needs of people who use the service.