CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elliott House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safer, more person-centred care after significant improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 19 and 24 May 2022, spoke with people, relatives, staff and the registered manager, and checked care records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines practice, suitable risk checks and support for people to make choices and take part in activities.
The inspection found that concerns from the previous inspection had been addressed. Restrictive practices had been reviewed, safeguarding processes had improved and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
This report did not inspect Caring or Responsive. Their ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating.
People had more choice
People could choose how to spend their time, change their minds about activities and decide whether to eat alone or with others.
“People could choose how they spent their time and there were various home-based activities people could take part in.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The new registered manager and provider acted on the earlier concerns. Inspectors found that the service was no longer breaching regulations.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
People were supported to be active
There were enough staff to support people to go out, enjoy hobbies and attend local places such as cafes.
“There were enough staff to support people to go out to undertake activities and enjoy hobbies, as well as support people with their needs in the home.” from the report
Positive relationships
Inspectors saw staff responding quickly and knowing people well. The atmosphere was described as relaxed and friendly.
“During the inspection we observed positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
People and families were involved
People and relatives were consulted about daily life, activities, menus and changes to the home. Families also received regular information.
“The culture in the home was positive, inclusive and empowering.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What safeguards are now in place to make sure restrictive practices are not used unless they are assessed as necessary and least restrictive?
- 02How will you check that my relative's support remains person-centred rather than following routine practices?
- 03How are people supported to choose activities, outings, meals and how they spend their time?
- 04How will you involve relatives in decisions and keep them informed about their family member's care?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 July 2022 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, June 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe restrictions, weak oversight and some safety risks, although medicines and healthcare support were generally good.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 and 14 April 2021. Inspectors reviewed care, medicines, staffing and risk records, observed interactions, and spoke with people, staff, relatives and health professionals.
The home was not always safe or person-centred. Some people faced blanket rules about drinks, food, lunch and regular checks. Restrictive practices were not always based on current assessments or best interests. Hot water was sometimes too hot, and safeguarding concerns were not reported quickly enough.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Recruitment and training
The home completed pre-employment checks and had a training programme covering relevant areas, including autism awareness and nutrition.
“The provider followed a recruitment procedure which ensured pre-employment checks were in place before new staff started work at the home.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to see healthcare professionals and have annual health checks. Professionals described communication with the home as effective.
“Effective communication channels with our service have been established.” from the report
Dietary support
People could choose from the daily menu, choose something different or make their own meals with support. Specific dietary needs were catered for.
“People were supported with specific dietary requirements, for example, pureed food was provided for those who needed it.” from the report
Restrictive practices
seriousSome restrictions on drinks and food were not supported by current assessments or best interests decisions. Inspectors were not assured these were the least restrictive options.
“We found evidence of restrictive practices within the service which were not the least restrictive alternative and in the person's best interests.” from the report
Blanket rules
seriousPeople were sometimes made to wait for lunch or drinks, and everyone received half-hourly checks without a clear individual reason. This meant care was not always based on personal needs and choices.
“During the inspection we found evidence of blanket practices, which meant the care provided was the same for each person and therefore not person-centred.” from the report
Safeguarding delays
seriousStaff did not report concerns to the registered manager until two days after the events. Inspectors said this meant one person was not protected from abuse.
“However, staff had not reported their concerns to the registered manager until two days after the events and this meant one person had not been protected from abuse.” from the report
Hot water safety
seriousWater temperatures at some outlets were above 44 degrees Celsius for weeks. The provider had not taken robust action to reduce the risk.
“Robust action had not been taken to address the reasons as to why the water temperature was too hot at some outlets or to reduce the risk.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not identify the concerns found during the inspection. There were also not enough senior staff to lead the team effectively.
“We found evidence that the governance systems in the home had not always been effective.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to remove blanket rules about drinks, meals and half-hourly checks?
- 02How are restrictive practices now assessed, reviewed and recorded as being in a person's best interests and the least restrictive option?
- 03What action has been taken to keep hot water temperatures below the level that inspectors identified as risky?
- 04How are safeguarding concerns reported and investigated now, and how do you check that staff report them without delay?
- 05What has changed in the home's quality checks since the warning notices and action plan?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, prompted partly by safeguarding concerns; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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.
Every inspection of Elliott House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 2010.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.