You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

We attempted to carry out an unannounced inspection on 12 February 2018. We were unable to enter the premises due to an outbreak of an infectious illness. We returned to carry out a comprehensive inspection on 14 March 2018 which was unannounced. This meant the provider; staff and people using the service did not know we would be visiting. We returned for a second day of inspection on 15 March 2018 which was announced.

Elizabeth House is a large, purpose built detached building set within its own grounds. It provides personal care for older people. It is registered to provide care to a maximum of 34 people. At the time of our inspection 31 people used the service.

Elizabeth House 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. 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.

At the last inspection in June 2016 we rated the service 'Good.' At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’. There was no evidence or information from our inspection or on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Staff followed policies and procedures to protect people from harm and abuse. Systems were in place to make sure lessons were learned when incidents took place. Risk assessments and guidance were in place to minimise the risk of harm to people. Safe recruitment procedures were in place and there were sufficient staff on duty. Medicines were administered safely and infection prevention and control was well managed.

Staff received the training they need to be able to carry out their roles and had regular supervision and annual appraisals.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, further work was needed to ensure decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest’s decisions were recorded when people lacked capacity to make their own decisions.

People told us they enjoyed their meals and had a choice of food. People’s weight was monitored so any issues could be addressed and food was nutritious. Health and social care professionals were involved in people’s care where needed.

People were supported by staff who knew them well. Care was delivered in way that responded to people's needs and preferences. Plans of care were drafted following assessment of people’s needs and these were reviewed regularly. Privacy, dignity and independence were consistently promoted. The policies and practices of the home helped to ensure that everyone was treated equally.

People had access to a wide range of activities and leisure opportunities and were encouraged to maintain personal relationships.

The environment and equipment had been regularly maintained. Emergency contingency plans were in place.

People were aware of how make a complaint. The management team completed regular audits and sought feedback to monitor and improve quality. Staff and people using the service were involved in decisions about how the service was run through regular meetings. The service worked closely with a range of health and social care professionals. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and provider.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good

Effective

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good

Caring

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 April 2018

The service remains Good