You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 March 2017

This inspection took place on 8 December 2016 and was unannounced.

Elizabeth Lodge is a care home that does not provide nursing. It provides support for up to 18 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living at the home.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Medicine records were not always kept appropriately.

People’s care had been appropriately assessed and plans had been developed to ensure that staff met people’s needs consistently and reduced and identified risks.

People confirmed they felt safe and that staff involved them in making decisions and staff knew people well.

Observation demonstrated people’s consent was sought before staff provided care.

People described staff as lovely and caring. Staff treated people with respect and recognised the importance of promoting independence, dignity and privacy.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding people at risk. They were confident any concerns raised would be acted upon by management and knew what action to take if they were not.

Thorough recruitment checks were carried out and the provider ensured there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff received an induction when they first started work which helped them to understand their roles and responsibilities. They felt supported through supervision and training.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and these were managed in line with the provider’s policy. Systems were in place to gather people’s views and assess and monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 March 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected against the risk of abuse and felt safe in the home.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs.

Safe recruitment practices were followed.

People's medicines were managed safely, medicine records were kept appropriately.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 March 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were appropriately supported to carry out their roles effectively through induction and relevant training.

Staff understood the main provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it applied to people in their care.

People were supported to have a sufficient amount to eat and drink.

Staff had developed good links with healthcare professionals and where necessary actively worked with them to promote and improve people's health and well-being.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 March 2017

The service was caring.

People were involved in decisions about their care and given support when needed.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of promoting independence, dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual support plan.

Staff demonstrated how they had responded to peoples changing needs.

People had access to information about how to complain and were confident that any complaints would be listened to and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 March 2017

The service was well led.

The registered manager had developed positive working relationships with the staff team and people living in the home.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included regular audits and feedback from people living in the home. However whilst the audits highlighted issues which had been addressed, they had not highlighted the issues with the medicines records we found at the inspection.

Due to the changes in systems the care plans had not been reviewed regularly however staff knew people well and there was a low staff turnover this reduced any risks.