CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ellerslie Court
Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and checks needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 August 2017. Inspectors reviewed records, spoke with people, a relative, staff and a healthcare professional, and looked around the home. They also observed care and checked staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable staff training and kind interactions. Care plans reflected people's choices, communication needs and personal histories.
There were a few shortfalls. One required notification had not been sent to the CQC, although this was corrected during the inspection. Some audits were not completed at regular intervals, and parts of the building needed improvement, including a stained carpet.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely, including arrangements for specialist medicines.
“Medication was managed safely and stored securely. Staff were recruited safely and were only offered positions in the home once all checks had been completed.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had updated training, regular supervision and annual appraisals. They also had specialist training for equipment used by people living at the home.
“We saw that staff completed specialist training on a ventilator and cough assist machine to be able to support people safely with these needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed compassionate care. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and asked about their wishes rather than making assumptions.
“We observed care being delivered in a caring and compassionate way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, preferences, communication methods and important relationships. Activities and routines were adapted to individual choices.
“Care was highly personalised, and each person's choices and personalities were taken into account when support plans were drawn up and care was delivered.” from the report
People's views were heard
Resident and team meetings took place regularly. The home acted on feedback, including requests about decoration and the environment.
“Team meetings and resident meetings took place every month, we were able to view minutes of these.” from the report
One notification was missed
needs fixingThe home had not sent one required notification about the outcome of an incident. The manager accepted this was an oversight and sent it without further delay during the inspection.
“the registered manager had not sent in one notification to update us of the outcome of an incident.” from the report
Audits were not always regular
needs fixingSome quality checks took place at irregular times rather than around the same time each month. The manager said they planned to improve the audit trail.
“The dates on some audits were quite sporadic.” from the report
Some areas needed improvement
minorThe home had ongoing plans to improve parts of the building. Inspectors noted that one carpet was badly stained and needed replacing.
“one of the carpets was quite badly stained and needed to be replaced” from the report
- 01Have the planned improvements to the building, including the replacement flooring, now been completed?
- 02How are audits scheduled now, and how do you check that actions are completed promptly?
- 03What changes have been made to make sure all statutory notifications are sent to the CQC on time?
- 04How will you support my relative's particular communication method, preferences and personal routines?
- 05How are staffing levels checked when people need support with specialist equipment or activities outside the home?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions and giving an overall rating; it was the first inspection under the new registered provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2017 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 Ellerslie Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2017Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 July 2016.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £980 to £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.