You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 3 March 2018

This inspection took place on 20 December 2017 and was unannounced. Our last inspection was in November 2015 where we rated the service as ‘Good’.

Queen Elizabeth Park is a nursing home providing support to a maximum of 77 older people. People living at the service had physical disabilities, long term medical conditions and many people were living with dementia. Care was provided across three floors in a purpose-built building.

Queen Elizabeth Park is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was 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.

Staff were committed to improving people's lives and they found innovative ways to do so. The provider found creative ways to encourage people to have fun and engage in activities they would enjoy. Care was planned and delivered in a person centred way and technology was utilised to achieve outcomes for people. Projects were undertaken in areas such as exercise and the provider built strong links with the local community which people benefitted from. These interventions had seen people develop confidence and skills. Staff understood the importance of promoting people’s independence and care was planned in a way that helped them to achieve this. Where people received end of life care, this was delivered sensitively and in line with best practice.

People received food that they liked and their dietary needs were met. People’s care plans were person-centred and reflected their needs and preferences. Risk assessments identified and managed risks people faced. Where clinical needs were identified, these were met by competent clinical staff. People’s medicines were administered in line with best practice and people had regular support from healthcare professionals, who worked alongside care staff to ensure people’s health was maintained. There were effective systems in place to manage the risk of the spread of infection and we found the home environment to be clean and staff were knowledgeable in this area.

Where accidents or incidents occurred, staff responded appropriately. Staff took actions to ensure that people were safe following incidents such as falls or illness. Staff understood how to respond if they suspected abuse had occurred and we saw evidence of them doing so. The provider analysed accidents and incidents as well as clinical needs and risks. Where patterns or trends were identified, appropriate actions to reduce risks were identified and implemented by staff.

People were supported by respectful staff that they got along well with. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and we observed pleasant interactions taking place during our inspection. Staff routinely involved people in choices about their care and the provider had systems in place to ensure that people could give feedback and make decisions wherever appropriate. The provider carried out a regular survey and a clear complaints procedure was in place and was known to people.

There were appropriate numbers of trained staff to meet people’s needs. Clinical staff got the support they needed to remain up to date with current practice. Staff received training to support them in their roles and had regular contact with their line managers. Regular meetings took place to involve staff in the running of the home and staff felt supported by the management.

Regular checks were carried out on the quality of the care that people received. The provider had a robust regime of audits in place that identif

Inspection areas



Updated 3 March 2018

The service remains Good.

Risks to people were routinely assessed and plans were identified to keep people safe. Staff responded appropriately to any accidents or incidents and understood their roles in safeguarding people from abuse.

People's medicines were managed and administered safely. The provider had robust systems in place to manage the risk of the spread of infections.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs. The provider carried out appropriate checks to ensure that staff were suitable for their roles.

People lived in a safe environment and the provider had plans in place to keep people safe in the event of an emergency.



Updated 3 March 2018

The service remains Good.

People were supported by staff that were trained to carry out their roles. Clinical staff were given the support that they needed to maintain and develop their professional competencies.

Staff worked alongside healthcare professionals to meet people's needs. People received a thorough assessment that covered all clinical needs when they came to live at the service.

People liked the food that was on offer and the provider ensured that people's dietary needs were met.

Staff asked for consent from people and followed the correct legal process where people were unable to consent.



Updated 3 March 2018

The service remains Good.

People were supported by kind and caring staff that knew them well.

Staff routinely involved people in their care. People were supported to make choices and staff promoted people's independence when providing care.

People's privacy and dignity was respected by staff.



Updated 3 March 2018

The service was exceptionally responsive.

The provider found creative ways to engage people in meaningful activities that improved their lives. People took part in activities, parties and outings that they enjoyed and that achieved positive outcomes for them.

Care was planned in a person-centred way, in line with people's preferences and needs. Regular reviews took place to ensure care was meeting people's needs. People who were receiving care at the end of their lives benefitted from a holistic and sensitive care service, in line with best practice.

There was a clear complaints policy in place and complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately.



Updated 3 March 2018

The service remains Good.

People benefitted from the provider's links with the local community.

Regular checks and audits were carried out to assure the quality of the care that people received. The provider regularly sought feedback from people, relatives and stakeholders.

The provider kept accurate and up to date records. Notifications of important and significant events were submitted to CQC in a timely manner.