CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elizabeth Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with risk assessments, suitable equipment, sufficient staff and safe medicines administration. Inspectors found that some staff were not wearing masks correctly, but refresher training was provided after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food, staff training and support from health professionals. Mental capacity records had improved since the previous inspection, although regular one-to-one supervision for staff had not always taken place.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, respectful and attentive. Staff supported independence and involved people in choices about their daily care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication methods. Activities had restarted after COVID-19 restrictions, but inspectors found that engagement was uneven between units.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager was viewed positively and had plans to improve the home and involve people, relatives and staff. Inspectors found medicines recording was not always robust, and there was not yet a registered manager in post.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some uneven activities and gaps in medicines records.
The unannounced inspection took place on 20 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, audits, policies and recruitment files.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they were happy, felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them access food, medicines and healthcare.
Inspectors found some units were quiet, with little activity for people. They also found incorrect mask use and some gaps in medicines recording. These issues were raised with the home, and action was taken or planned.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 19 September 2020. Improvements had been made to mental capacity records and end of life care plans.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw friendly conversations and good relationships between staff and people.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
People felt safe
Staff understood people's risks and knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns. Inspectors found enough staff and heard that call bells were answered.
“People were safe with staff. Staff identified potential risks to people and took action to help prevent accidents or incidents.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's health, communication, interests and daily preferences. Staff were able to describe people's lives and needs.
“People received care that was personalised to them.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The home had improved its mental capacity records and end of life care planning after recommendations at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we could see action had been taken.” from the report
Uneven activities
needs fixingSome units were quiet and had little going on. The provider was asked to continue developing activities and social pastimes in line with people's wishes.
“We observed some units within the service were very quiet with little going on for people, whilst others were busy.” from the report
Medicines recording
seriousRecords did not always show when topical creams had been applied, and one eye drop was missed on one occasion. The gaps were addressed immediately.
“We identified however recording of medicines was not always robust.” from the report
Mask use
needs fixingThe manager and several staff were seen wearing masks incorrectly, including when close to people at lunchtime. Refresher training was provided after the inspection.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely as we saw both the manager and several staff members not wearing their masks correctly.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingStaff had not always had regular one-to-one meetings with their line manager. The manager had created a supervision schedule to address this.
“Staff had not always had regular opportunity to meet with their line manager on a one to one basis.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure people in the quieter units have regular activities that match their interests?
- 02What checks now confirm that topical creams and eye drops are recorded and given correctly?
- 03What refresher training and checks are in place to make sure staff wear masks correctly when required?
- 04How often will staff have one-to-one supervision meetings with their line manager?
- 05Has the manager's application to register with CQC been completed?
The inspection covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection published on 19 September 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 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.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Elizabeth Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during a focused COVID-19 inspection.
Inspectors visited on 22 February 2022 with short notice. This was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
They found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The home was using some agency staff because of care staff vacancies, but local agency workers were used regularly so they could become familiar with the people living there.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed testing, vaccinations, visiting, isolation, cleaning, protective equipment and infection outbreaks appropriately. People could keep in touch with family through visits, garden visits and video calls.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors found the premises clean and hygienic. Cleaning, protective equipment and infection-control checks had been strengthened during the pandemic.
“The premises were clean and hygienic. Additional cleaning had been implemented since the advent of the pandemic and standards of infection prevention and control (IPC) were audited regularly.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home had controls for visitors, including screening and negative lateral flow tests. Family contact was maintained through several types of visit and video calls.
“Visitors were required to provide evidence of a negative lateral flow test and to complete COVID-19 screening.” from the report
Staffing arrangements
Although there were care staff vacancies, inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The home used dedicated local agency workers to reduce the risk of cross-contamination.
“the registered manager had arranged exclusivity with some local agencies, to ensure that agency staff were dedicated to the service.” from the report
Support with testing and vaccination
People were supported to access COVID-19 testing and vaccinations. Staff also took part in regular testing.
“People who lived at the home were supported to access testing for COVID-19 and to have their COVID-19 vaccinations.” from the report
Care staff vacancies
minorThere were care staff vacancies and agency workers were being used regularly. Inspectors said staffing was sufficient during this visit, but families may want to check whether this remains the case.
“There were vacancies for care staff at the time of our inspection, which meant agency staff were used regularly.” from the report
- 01How many care staff vacancies do you have now, and how often are agency workers used?
- 02Are agency workers still drawn mainly from dedicated local agencies, and how do you make sure they know my relative's needs?
- 03What are the current rules for family visits, testing and infection precautions?
- 04How do you support residents who need to isolate after testing positive for COVID-19?
- 05How can my relative keep in touch with family if face-to-face visits are restricted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions or give a full service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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 Elizabeth Court
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.