Elizabeth House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. This overall key question rating is based on previous inspections, as we did not rate the full key question at this inspection. There continued to be mixed findings about the food, however people’s health conditions continued to be monitored.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

There continued to be mixed feedback about the food, and our observations confirmed this. A professional told us people had told them they were ‘bored’ of the food in an evening.

One person told us, “They [staff] just bring it [food]. I can complain – it’ll make no difference.” Another person said, “The food is mediocre. It was always the same and boring.” One staff member said, “Food is good here, residents mostly enjoy meals served to them. If they don’t like it, we feed it back to the kitchen. If someone isn’t eating, I will encourage them and if they don’t like it, I will get them an alternative. No one goes hungry.” Another staff member told us, “I think the quality of the food varies. I feedback to the cook if people do not like a particular meal, but they [the cook] will know this by the amount of food returned on people’s plates.”

The provider had continued to have hot main meals delivered to the home by an external company. These were ordered in advance and generally consisted of 2 options per day for people. On the day of our inspection, there was a marked difference between how much was eaten of each meal choice, and 1 option seemed less popular than the other. The dessert choices were similar so there was limited variety. We saw 1 occasion a person was not offered a choice of dessert, and they were just given a dessert by staff. After they did not eat this, staff provided the other dessert, and the person ate this. However, they should have been offered the choice in the first place.

When we checked the freezers, there was not much available to be able to provide an alternative meal should anyone not want the main choices. Following our feedback, the registered manager sent us evidence of additional meals being purchased.

There seemed to be delays between people receiving their food. Two people were sharing a table; 1 received their meal quickly and was assisted to eat their meal by a staff member. However, the other person had to sit and wait until a different carer came and assisted them, but the other person had finished their meal by this time. People who needed support to eat were supported by 1 staff member at a time and were supported with respect.

We observed people being offered drinks and snacks through the day and a choice of drinks at lunch time. Those who were able to ask for a drink, got these when requested. However, our observation and the records showed that snacks between mealtimes were generally only biscuits. There was limited variety, such as savoury or healthier snacks, to cater for people’s different tastes. The registered manager told us the local authority had identified the same thing but had not yet made any changes. They agreed to make changes to offer more variety.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.