We carried out a review of the data available to us about Queen Elizabeth House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Queen Elizabeth House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had a COVID-19 specific contingency plan in place which they had followed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. People using the service were being supported to self-isolate. Family and friends visiting had been stopped, however, the provider ensured people could maintain links with family members and friends through video and phone calls.
The provider was monitoring essential visitors entering the home and screened visitors for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before being allowed to enter the home. They were supported to follow the governments guidance on wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing.
There was an enhanced COVID-19 testing program in place for people using the service and for staff. The provider was working closely with the GP, health care professionals, the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Public Health England and the South East London Coronavirus Response team.
The provider was monitoring the health and wellbeing of people using the service and staff. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic COVID-19 risk assessments were carried out with people using the service and staff to ensure they could live and work safely at the home.
When staff showed symptoms of COVID-19 they were required to self-isolate. The provider blocked booked agency staff to ensure they only worked at Queen Elizabeth House. The provider carried out checks on agency staff’s profiles to make sure they had received training on infection control. Agency staff received the same training and supervision as regular staff whilst working at the home and they were being tested weekly for COVID-19 along with regular staff.
All staff had received training on COVID-19, infection control and the use of PPE. We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE and socially distancing throughout our visit. An infection control champion had been appointed at the home. The infection control champion had received additional training from CCG and was rolling this training out to staff.
The provider had revised and enhanced the homes infection control and cleaning procedures, an extra cleaner had been employed to work at the home. The home had been deep cleaned [Fogged] the day prior to our visit and we saw the home was clean throughout.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.
Risks to the health and safety of people were assessed and reviewed in line with the provider's policy. Medicines were managed, administered and stored safely. There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies and there were safeguarding adult’s policies and procedures in place. Accidents and incidents were recorded and acted on appropriately. There were appropriate numbers of staff to meet people’s needs.
Staff new to the home were inducted into the service appropriately. Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. There were systems in place which ensured the service complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). This provides protection for people who do not have capacity to make decisions for themselves. People’s nutritional needs and preferences were met and people had access to health and social care professionals when required.
People were treated with respect and their support needs and risks were identified, assessed and documented within their care plan. People were provided with information on how to make a complaint. People using the service and their relatives were asked for their views about the service to help drive improvements.
This inspection took place on 4 and 5 August 2015 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in December 2013, we found the provider was meeting the regulations in relation to the outcomes we inspected.
Queen Elizabeth House provides accommodation and residential care for 28 older people, including people living with dementia and with physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection the home was providing support to 26 people. The home had a registered manager in post. 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.
People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had received appropriate support and training which enabled them to identify the possibility of abuse and take appropriate actions to report and escalate concerns. People and their relatives told us they felt risks related to individuals care was identified and managed appropriately. Risk assessments were person centred, detailed and responsive to people’s needs.
Medicines were managed, stored and administered safely. There were safe staff recruitment practices in place and appropriate recruitment checks were conducted before staff started work ensuring people were supported by staff that were suitable for their role.
There were systems in place to monitor the safety of the environment and equipment used within the home minimising risks to people. There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.
There were processes in place to ensure new staff were inducted into the home appropriately and staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals. Staff were aware of the importance of gaining consent to the support they offered people and the registered manager and staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards legislation.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to a range of health and social care professionals when required. People’s nutritional needs and preference were met.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported and could describe peoples’ preferences in how they liked to be supported. We observed staff speaking to, and treating people in a respectful and caring manner and interactions between people, their relatives and staff were relaxed and friendly.
People received care and treatment in accordance with their identified needs and wishes. Care plans documented information about people’s personal history, choices and preferences, preferred activities and people’s ability to communicate.
People were supported to engage in a range of activities that met their needs and reflected their interests. There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and information on how to make a compliant was on display in the entrance hall of the home so it was accessible to all.
People and their relatives told us the atmosphere in the home was open, friendly and welcoming. People told us and we observed that the registered manager and staff were approachable. The home and provider took account of people’s views with regard to the service provided through satisfaction surveys that were carried out on an annual basis. There were systems and processes in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of the service provided.
We found that people's health and social care needs were assessed and that care was delivered and monitored in line with their individual care plans and risk assessments. People told us that they received care, treatment and support they agreed to. The provider had suitable arrangements in place to manage and administer medicines safely to people using the service. Staff we spoke with told us that there were sufficient people on duty to meet people's needs and they had received adequate training and support to undertake their roles. Management and personal records were fit for purpose, securely stored and destroyed when appropriate to do so.
People told us that they could always speak to staff about any problems and that staff were always responsive to people's needs.
People told us that they had been involved in needs assessments and the development of care plans.
Visitors to the home told us that the home was always 'spotlessly clean' and that they were always kept informed about any changes in the care and welfare of people living in the home.
People told us that they could raise any issues with management and where this had been done in the past, the home had always responded satisfactorily.