CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ellasdale Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found procedures covering visitors, PPE, testing, admissions, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although the report records positive comments from relatives about the care and support provided.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although the report describes support for activities, visits and telephone or video contact.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although the report says the infection prevention and control policy was clear, user-friendly and up to date.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Ellasdale Road was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls and good communication with families.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 26 March 2021. It looked at how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections. The home was inspected but not rated overall, and Safe was also inspected but not rated.
Inspectors were assured that infection controls were in place. These included visitor procedures, social distancing, PPE, testing, safe admissions, cleaning and an up-to-date infection control policy.
The report also describes positive support during the pandemic. People were helped to understand restrictions, stay active and keep in touch with relatives. Relatives said communication was excellent and visits were carefully arranged.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements to reduce the risk of infection and manage possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives spoke positively about communication during the pandemic. The home supported visits and used telephone and video calls when visits were not possible.
“The communication has been excellent. They are very open.” from the report
Activities and community access
People continued to take part in walks, community activities and new activities such as online Zumba, despite pandemic restrictions.
“People had been supported to continue an active lifestyle, despite the restrictions caused by the pandemic.” from the report
Support for staff
Staff had access to external counselling and additional training to help them work during the pandemic.
“There was a provider funded external counselling line that staff could access free of charge.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control procedures are in place now, including testing, PPE and visits?
- 02How will my relative be supported to understand any future restrictions or changes?
- 03What activities and community access are currently available to residents?
- 04How will the home keep our family informed and help us stay in contact if visits are restricted?
- 05What is the current position on ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, which were not assessed in this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated overall, and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not consistently well-led because mental capacity records were incomplete.
Inspectors visited on 1 October 2018. The visit was announced. They observed care, spoke with staff, relatives and a professional, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training and management documents.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found people were safe, received their medicines as prescribed, and were supported by trained staff. Staff were described as kind and patient, and people had personalised care plans, activities and communication support.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Audits had not found gaps in mental capacity records, including missing evidence of people's views and how decisions about restrictive practices had been made. The overall rating was still Good, but the home needed to improve its management checks and records.
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and checked as competent before giving medicines. Records showed that medicines were given as prescribed, including medicines used when needed.
“People's Medicine Administration Records (MAR) were completed daily and their medicines given as prescribed.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received detailed induction and ongoing training, including autism, epilepsy and safeguarding training. They knew people's routines, communication needs and ways to reduce anxiety.
“Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people and meet all their needs.” from the report
Personalised activities
People had individual timetables based on their interests and goals. Activities included hobbies, volunteering, holidays and steps towards personal aims.
“People had their own individual activity timetables that were person centred to their interests and hobbies.” from the report
Communication and involvement
Staff used pictures, objects, communication books and Makaton to help people express their views. People and relatives were involved in reviews and surveys.
“Staff were knowledgeable of people's communication needs and used a variety of tools to support with this.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome records did not show the person's views or how staff decided that the person lacked capacity. This included decisions about personal care and restrictive practices.
“However, there was no evidence to demonstrate the person's views had been considered and how the decision for a lack of capacity was reached.” from the report
Audits missed gaps
needs fixingThe home completed regular quality checks, but these checks had not picked up the inconsistencies found by inspectors. The provider needed to make its monitoring more effective.
“Although quality assurance audits had been completed regularly, these audits had not identified some inconsistencies which we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01How have you improved mental capacity assessments since this inspection?
- 02How do you record a person's views and best-interest decisions when monitoring or other support restricts their privacy or movement?
- 03How do your current audits check that mental capacity and restrictive-practice records are complete?
- 04How many DoLS applications had been authorised since the inspection, and how are people supported while applications are waiting?
- 05How do you make sure agency or replacement staff understand each person's routines and anxiety support?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall service; it was the first inspection under the current provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Ellasdale Road
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 2017.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.