CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elliott House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, risk assessments, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were managed safely. The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supported people's health, choices, food and drink needs. Mental Capacity Act records and best-interest decisions had improved.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not covered by this focused inspection, so this report does not give a new rating for it. People told inspectors that staff were kind, caring and supportive.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had become more detailed and personalised. People were supported with communication, relationships, activities, community involvement and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new management arrangements had improved record keeping, audits and oversight of risks and care quality. The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Elliott House rated Good; inspectors found safer, more personalised care, with the replacement electronic gate still being progressed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. One inspector visited on 13 December 2022, spoke with seven people and 10 staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found improvements in medicines management, risk assessments, care records and quality checks. They found enough staff, safe infection control, suitable support for people's choices and good access to activities and the community.
People described staff as kind, caring and supportive. The management team was described as approachable, and inspectors found a positive atmosphere. The service was rated Good overall and for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published on 19 October 2021. The provider had acted on its action plan, and the earlier breaches of regulations 12 and 17 had been addressed. The electronic gate recommendation was still being actioned.
Personalised records
Care records had improved and gave staff clear guidance tailored to each person. Inspectors found that people were involved in planning their care.
“Records were detailed and gave guidance to staff, so people received care that was centred and tailored to each individual.” from the report
Safer medicines
Staff followed processes for prescribing, giving, recording and storing medicines. Medicines were also reviewed to avoid excessive or inappropriate use.
“People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to prescribe, administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Kind and trusted staff
People said they trusted staff and felt supported. The report also says people were supported to keep in contact with their families.
“People were complimentary about the care provided by staff. They trusted the staff who supported them.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in meaningful activities and community life, including shopping and social events.
“Staff supported or encouraged people to become more engaged and occupied in activities and community involvement that was meaningful to the person” from the report
Improved management
The management team had introduced stronger record keeping, audits and checks. Staff spoke positively about the management team and felt supported.
“Regular internal checks and audits were completed to monitor service provision, and external systems were in place to check the effectiveness of the audits carried out internally.” from the report
Electronic gate still pending
minorThe recommendation to replace the electronic gate had not yet been completed. Inspectors said it was still in the process of being actioned.
“The recommendation regarding replacing the electronic gate was in the process of being actioned.” from the report
- 01When will the electronic gate be replaced, and what will the final design be?
- 02How are care records and risk assessments reviewed to make sure they still reflect each person's needs?
- 03How does the home check that medicines are given, recorded and reviewed safely, including when people manage their own medicines?
- 04How will you support my relative to take part in activities and the local community in ways that match their interests?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected and the report says the overall rating used ratings from the previous inspection for key questions not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 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, October 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but serious gaps in fire safety, medicines and care records.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 19 and 26 August 2021. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management checks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found risks were not always reviewed, medicines were not always managed safely, and fire safety work identified in 2019 was still incomplete. The fire service had taken enforcement action.
People were treated with kindness and dignity, and Caring was rated Good. There were enough staff, people could take part in activities and visits, and relatives were happy with the care. However, the home must improve its records, decision-making processes, training, care planning and management checks.
Enough staff
Staffing levels were based on people's needs, including people who needed regular one-to-one support. Recruitment checks were completed before new staff started.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff felt well supported and new staff were recruited safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about the care. Inspectors found that staff respected privacy and dignity and involved people in discussions about their care.
“People we spoke with were happy with the support they received at Elliott House.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to follow interests, attend college, seek voluntary work and take part in activities. Visits with relatives were supported.
“People were supported to see relatives and encouraged to join in a wide variety of activities both inside and outside the home.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Fire safety
seriousImportant work identified by a fire risk assessment in December 2019 had still not been completed. Inspectors said this placed people at risk.
“The provider had not taken necessary action to ensure people were safe in the event of a fire.” from the report
Medicines
seriousSome medicines were not managed safely. Guidance for medicines given when needed was missing or out of date, and medicine stocks were not properly controlled.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Care records and risk assessments
seriousRisk assessments, care plans and behaviour monitoring records were not always complete, accurate or current. This meant staff could not always access reliable information about people's needs and risks.
“There was not a full and accurate record in place for each person.” from the report
Capacity and choice
seriousMental capacity assessments were not completed properly in some cases. This led to some people's choices being restricted unnecessarily.
“In some cases, this had led to people having their choices unnecessarily restricted.” from the report
Training
needs fixingSome training relevant to the people living in the home was incomplete or overdue, including mental health and learning disability training.
“Staff training was not up to date.” from the report
Personalised planning
needs fixingSupport plans did not consistently record people's likes, dislikes, hopes and goals. There was no clear framework to help people set and achieve their goals.
“There was a lack of information about people's hopes and aspirations and no clear framework to help people set and then achieve their goals.” from the report
- 01What work has now been completed to address the fire safety risks identified in 2019, and what action did the fire service require?
- 02How are medicines given when needed checked, and how do you prevent excessive medicine stock from building up?
- 03How often are each person's risk assessments and support plans reviewed, and how can families see that they are up to date?
- 04How do you assess a person's capacity for each decision and record that choices are being restricted only when necessary?
- 05What training has been brought up to date since the inspection, particularly for mental health, learning disability and medicines?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the report describes it as the first inspection of this newly registered service, while the previous rating under the former provider was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 June 2019.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.