CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eliza House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were generally protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and risks and infection control were managed. However, medicines for three people were not managed fully safely, and staffing arrangements did not always reflect people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, choices and preferences. People were supported with activities, communication and relationships, although one relative's recent concern had not been recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had clear roles and carried out regular audits. They had an improvement plan for repairs and redecoration, but some premises were in disrepair and some policies needed updating.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines and staffing needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 August and 6 September 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and activities, walked around the home, and checked care, medicines, staffing and other records.
People were generally positive about the care. Staff knew people's needs and preferences, supported activities and helped people make choices. Inspectors also found safe recruitment, safeguarding training, suitable risk assessments and good infection control.
The main concerns were medicines for three people and staffing pressures. Some people waited for their buzzer to be answered, and staff did not always have enough time to talk with people. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, but Good for Responsive and Well-led.
The overall rating stayed Good, as some ratings were carried over from the previous inspection and this inspection did not assess all five areas. The provider was given recommendations about medicines and staffing.
Person-centred care
Staff knew people well and care plans gave clear guidance about their backgrounds, preferences and support needs.
“People received person-centred care by a team of staff who knew theirs needs and preferences well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about their daily routines, clothing and care.
“People had choice and control over their care and support.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People were offered group and individual activities, including outings, music and celebrations of religious and cultural events.
“We observed people having a good time singing and dancing, and the activity coordinator engaging with them in different activity sessions.” from the report
Safeguarding and risk management
Staff were trained to recognise and report abuse. Care plans included risk assessments, and staff followed safe moving and handling arrangements.
“People were protected from avoidable harm and risks of abuse.” from the report
Management checks
Managers used audits and spot checks to monitor the service and had started improvement work on the building.
“Quality assurance systems comprised regular audits on the service's systems and processes, and spot checks.” from the report
Medicines
seriousInspectors found problems affecting three people. These included eye drops not being given as prescribed, unclear records for one medicine, and an incomplete plan for covert medicines.
“For 1 person, staff had not been administering their eye drops as per the prescribed instructions.” from the report
Building condition
needs fixingSome walls had peeling paint, furniture looked worn, a communal toilet had a leak and the lift had sometimes been out of order. Improvement work was under way during the inspection.
“We observed parts of the premises to be in a state of disrepair.” from the report
Recording concerns
minorA recent concern raised by a relative had not been entered in the complaints log. The manager said concerns would be recorded properly in future.
“However, there were concerns raised by a relative recently which had not been documented.” from the report
Staff records and policies
minorTwo staff files did not clearly record employment history, and some policies and procedures needed updating.
“Some of the policies and procedures needed updating.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine checks and covert medicine plans since the inspection?
- 02How do you now assess staffing levels, including people's communication, psychological and cognitive needs?
- 03Have the repairs, redecoration and lift problems identified by inspectors been fully completed?
- 04How are medicines administration records checked to prevent duplicate or unclear records?
- 05How are relatives' concerns and complaints recorded and followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, although people were not always offered a choice of meal.
Inspectors visited without warning on 13 and 26 April 2022. They spoke with eight people, eight relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and management checks.
People appeared comfortable and well supported. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, there were enough staff, medicines were generally managed safely, and the home was clean. Staff were trained and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were each rated Good. The report says improvements had been made since the previous Requires Improvement rating, including improvements to management oversight and oral hygiene support.
Safe staffing
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment checks were also completed to make sure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
“During the inspection we saw sufficient staff available to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported people to remain as independent as possible and involved them in choices about their care.
“People were involved in every aspect of their care provision.” from the report
Health support
People were supported with their health, oral hygiene, food and fluids. The home made referrals to health professionals when needed.
“People were supported to promote and maintain their health and physical well-being.” from the report
Improved management
Inspectors found that earlier improvements had been maintained. The home used audits and an improvement plan to monitor care and address issues.
“The provider and registered manager had successfully managed to implement and maintain systems and processes which enabled them to sustain and embed the improvements noted at the last focused inspection.” from the report
Meal choices
needs fixingSome people said they were not always offered a choice of meal and ate what they were given. The registered manager said this would be looked at.
“However, people also told us that they were not always offered a choice of meal and ate what they were given.” from the report
Medicine stock records
minorInspectors found minor differences between medicine stock levels and the home's stock checks. The registered manager investigated this immediately and put measures in place to prevent it happening again.
“We identified some minor discrepancies in stock levels.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure each person is offered a choice of meal at every mealtime?
- 02What measures were put in place after the minor medicine stock discrepancies?
- 03How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 04How are residents and relatives' feedback from meetings used to improve the home?
- 05Which rating applies to Responsive, and when was that area last inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; Responsive was not inspected during this visit and its rating was carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Eliza House
9 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.