ELSI (SW) LTD

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We reviewed all 7 of the quality statements in this key question.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received person-centred care and support. People had support from staff to engage in paid employment or to volunteer locally.

Staff spoke with us in detail about the person-centred care they were delivering. Staff felt passionate about being able to support people to have jobs and be part of their local community.

We observed staff providing person-centred care in people's homes.

People told us they knew all of the staff who supported them. People had staff rotas available to them so they could see which staff were working and at what times. The service did not use agency staff which meant people had a continuity in their care and support.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to help provide a continuity in care for people.

Professionals told us staff discussed any concerns with them to resolve issues in a timely way. Professionals told us staff were person-centred in their approach and always seeking to make sure people could make their own decisions. The provider had taken on a new service prior to our assessment. Professionals told us staff had been “proactive” in communicating with people and relatives to make sure the handover was safe.

People’s care records demonstrated the service had worked with other care providers and health services to ensure people received continuity of care.

People had information in formats that suited their communication needs. We observed a pictorial complaints policy was available in people’s homes to help them understand the complaints procedure.

The registered manager told us they produced easy read documents where needed to help people understand any information. If people needed other formats this would also be provided.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. it also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. We found the provider was following the AIS making sure people’s communication needs were recorded. Preferred methods of communication were known and pictorial information was made available in the service.

People told us they knew how to complain if needed. One person told us they had the office number on their phone to contact the registered manager with any concern. The registered manager confirmed people did call them with concerns they wanted to share.

The registered manager told us they supported people to share their feedback in various ways. The registered manager visited people regularly and told us they were confident people had opportunity to raise any concerns with them if they wanted to.

The provider had a complaint policy and process to manage any complaints. The registered manager kept a log of all complaints made and actions taken in response.

People told us they had support from staff to access local services where needed.

Staff talked to us about how they supported people to access their community which included local services.

Records demonstrated staff were supporting people to attend routine healthcare appointments and regular check-ups with community health and social care professionals.

People had care and support they needed based on their needs. People had opportunities to engage in their local communities and use local services which led to positive outcomes.

Staff spoke with us about how they made sure people did not face discrimination when accessing health services. One staff member told us they worked hard to make sure one person saw the same healthcare professional. This consistency for the person had improved their outcomes.

The registered manager told us the organisations aims and ethos was to advocate for people where needed. They had a focus on choice and control and supporting people to make their choices in all aspects of their lives. They told us they wanted people to live fulfilling lives without barriers. Records demonstrated people’s care and support was consistently provided and people were able to do the activities and work they wanted to do.

People had not been supported to have conversations about end-of-life care and what their wishes and preferences were.

Staff told us they had received training on end-of-life care. The registered manager told us future planning conversations had not been started with people. The registered manager told us they were not sure how people would respond to being asked for this information. They recognised that more work was needed to make sure if people had preferences they were recorded.

The provider had information about supporting people to think about their future wishes, including end of life care, but this work had not been carried out with any of the people using the service. The registered manager was signposted to further resources to help with this work. No-one was receiving end-of-life care at the time of the assessment.