Elizabeth Court

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always ensure that people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, or that their privacy and dignity were respected. Not all staff engaged with people in a way that promoted positive and caring relationships, and there were occasions where staff spoke openly about people, which compromised confidentiality. People and relatives spoke highly of the staff and valued the support, comments included, ‘“Staff are really lovely, caring and kind” ; ”Staff are lovely” and “Special mention to the staff."

People were not always treated as individuals, and the care and support they received didn’t always reflect their personal needs or preferences. Staff didn’t consistently consider what mattered to each person, such as their strengths, goals, cultural background, or protected characteristics. Care plans often lacked important personal details, like what people enjoyed, disliked, or could do for themselves.

Many people weren’t actively involved in planning their own care, which meant they missed the chance to say what kind of support they needed or how they wanted it to be delivered. Everyday choices were also limited. For example, people weren’t asked whether they wanted condiments with their meals, and all food was served on plastic plates or in plastic bowls. While some bedrooms were personalised, this wasn’t the case for everyone.

The service did not always consistently support people to be independent, which meant they were not always aware of their rights or able to make informed choices about their care, treatment, and wellbeing. The environment was not conducive for people living with dementia and did not encourage independence; for example, there was limited signage to help individuals find their way around. While activity coordinators were employed, they were not available every day of the week, and no activities were observed on the first day of the assessment. There were no restrictions on visiting, family and friends could visit when they wanted to.

The service did not consistently recognise or respond to individuals’ needs in a timely manner. In some cases, care plans lacked sufficient guidance for staff to manage emergency situations effectively. There are different types of epilepsy with different symptoms and require specific interventions, so it is essential that care plans and risk assessments include clear, person-centred guidance. However, we found that, one person’s risk assessment for epilepsy did not include any information on the type of epilepsy they had or the warning signs staff should look out for, leaving staff unclear on how to respond appropriately during a seizure. This lack of detail increased the risk of delayed or inappropriate care during an emergency.

Additionally, incomplete information within medicine records meant staff were not always aware of when to administer medication to alleviate distress or pain.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. There were mixed views in relation to the staffing levels and the ability of staff to carry out their role. One staff member told us, “Sometimes the needs of people can outweigh what we can do, we don’t get time to sit there and care that is low down on the list.’ A supervision tracker was in place however, some staff said they had not received supervision. While staff were encouraged to give feedback, they told us it was not always acted upon. Staff felt supported by the management team, one staff member told us, “The bosses are good, and the staff are brilliant."