You are here

Elizabethlodge Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

About the service

Elizabeth Lodge is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 16 older people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 18 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received a service which was not always safe, effective or well-led.

The provider did not have a robust procedure in place to ensure all new staff were safe to work in the home. People were asked for their consent for everyday care and support but there was not a system in place to ensure best interests decisions were made regarding an alarm system in the bedrooms. The registered manager had a system of audits in place to monitor the quality of the care provided. However, the auditing process did not identify the issues we identified during the inspection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; however, one policy in the home did not support this practice.

The provider had policies and procedures in place designed to protect people from the risk of suffering harm and abuse. People had assessments in place which identified risks to their health and action was taken to minimise the risks. People received their medicines as prescribed. The provider had processes in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.

People’s needs were assessed before moving into the home, so the registered manager could be assured their needs could be met. People’s needs were met by suitable numbers of staff. People were supported by staff who were trained and supported through the use of supervision and annual appraisal.

People felt cared for, were treated well and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported to eat and drink enough and had a choice of meals. People could choose where they ate their meals. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when necessary.

People and their relatives, when appropriate, were involved in planning their care. Individual care plans were in place for each person which covered their care, support and communication needs. The activities co-ordinator undertook group activities but also spent time with people in their rooms if they chose to stay there. People’s end of life preferences and choices had been discussed with people and recorded in their care plans.

The registered manager had not received any complaints about the service. Staff and the registered manager liaised with other agencies to ensure consistency of care. The provider and registered manager promoted a positive culture. The registered manager was aware of the duty of candour. The registered manager had formed working relationships with health and social care professionals. Regular testing and maintenance had been completed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 3 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We found evidence that the provider needed to make improvements. Please see the safe, effective and well-led sections of this full report.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 2 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 2 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.