Queen Elizabeth Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff interactions were gentle, respectful and person-centred, and people were supported in a calm and reassuring way. Observations showed staff routinely sought consent and explained care. We saw staff knocked on people’s bedroom doors and waited for a response before entering.

People and relatives consistently described staff as kind and caring. People told us, “They are so patient, kind and caring" and “They are very, very kind to me. I ask them, they help me.”
One person was being provided with end-of-life care and their relative told us, “When we were told there really was no hope, the [staff] were with us, and they shed a tear with us too. It's like they’re family.”

The provider treated people as individuals. People were offered choices around daily routines, such as where to spend their time and what to eat, and staff adapted approaches when people were confused or distressed.

We found some care records contained specific and detailed examples of people’s religious practices and how these were supported in a way that respected their beliefs and choices. There was evidence that staff knew people well and built familiarity, with one relative stating, “They really know [person]. They love the garden and they gave [them] this room so [they] could look out” and “They have got to know [family member] and [they] know them.”

The provider supported people to maintain independence, choice and control. Many people described being able to make decisions about their daily lives, including when to get up or go to bed and whether to remain in their rooms. People told us, “I can get up and go to bed when I want” and “I'm in bed because I want to be, it’s my choice to be here.”

Some people were able to maintain independence, for example mobilising independently or choosing to eat in their own rooms. Staff also supported people gently to make choices during mealtimes, explaining options in a calm manner.

Observations showed that staff gently explained choices of what was available to drink and eat during lunchtime. We saw one person kept changing their mind on what they wanted to eat, and staff took time to support them in making their decision.

The provider responded promptly or consistently to people’s immediate needs. Although staff were attentive and people were generally supported in a calm and patient manner, there were delays and inconsistencies reported in response times.

Some people and relatives reported delays when using call bells. One relative told us, "The call bell doesn't always get answered quickly, it can take up to 15 minutes." Another person told us, "If I ring the bell, they are sometimes a bit slow, but they always come." Leaders undertook monthly audits to staff responsiveness of call bells, testing response times by activating call bells and measuring how long it took staff to attend. When issues were identified, these were discussed with team members.

We observed staff supporting a person who appeared disorientated. Staff approached them in a calm and caring manner, offering reassurance and providing them a choice to whether they wished to sit in the communal area or return to their bedroom.

External professionals told us that staff contacted them promptly to discuss any concerns in relation to people’s care. One professional told us, “The team ensures that clinical information is shared promptly and that any concerns regarding people are escalated appropriately. They are proactive in coordinating visits, supporting both planned and urgent clinical reviews, and work closely with our multidisciplinary team to ensure residents receive timely and person-centred care.”

People also said they felt reassured that staff were available and would respond if their condition changed. One person told us, “I don't take many medicines, but if I had a headache or anything it would not be a problem to ask for Paracetamol.”

The provider did not always promote workforce wellbeing and enablement. Feedback from staff highlighted concerns about how they were supported, with several reporting feeling undervalued, unsupported and treated unfairly by management. One staff member told us, “I don’t think the manager cares about staff morale. Despite how [they] treat us, we still try our best to do our work and care for people, but it can be hard if the management don’t care for us.”

Staff described experiences of not being able to take leave flexibly and being expected to work when unwell. Some staff became visibly upset when discussing their experiences, and one member of staff said they felt they were not treated, ’like a human.’

While staff were observed working well together and maintaining a calm and professional approach to care delivery, these concerns about leadership and support had the potential to affect morale and staff wellbeing. This may also limit the provider’s ability to sustain consistently high-quality, person-centred care.

The registered manager told us they had initiated additional staff engagement meetings and confidential feedback mechanisms to better understand these concerns and identify opportunities for improvement.