CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Elizabeth House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. This included visitor controls, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Elizabeth House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 February 2021. It checked how the home was prepared to prevent and control coronavirus infections.
Inspectors found good practice in how people were supported. Staff gave reassurance and information about the pandemic, used personal protective equipment correctly, and kept policies updated when guidance changed.
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, shielding, social distancing, admissions, testing, hygiene, outbreaks and infection control policies. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Support during the pandemic
People were given reassurance and information in ways that took account of their short-term memory difficulties.
“People were offered constant reassurance and information about the pandemic to ease any anxieties and help them understand the measures in place.” from the report
PPE use
Staff had training in using personal protective equipment and used it in line with guidance. People who wanted to wear masks could get them.
“Staff had received training in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and used it in line with guidance.” from the report
Updated guidance
The manager monitored changes to coronavirus guidance and updated policies and procedures. Staff were told about changes through meetings and email alerts.
“The registered manager monitored the guidance issued and updated policies and procedures in line with any changes.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that arrangements covered visitors, admissions, testing, hygiene, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently prevented from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How do you make sure staff remain trained to use PPE safely and correctly?
- 03How are people admitted safely and tested when they first arrive?
- 04How do you keep infection prevention policies updated when guidance changes?
- 05What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess all areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2021 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, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with one missing epilepsy care plan put right during the inspection.
Two inspectors carried out an unannounced inspection on 12 August 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, healthcare professionals and one relative. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors saw kind interactions, found that staff knew people well, and saw people being supported to make choices and live as independently as possible.
The inspection found good support with medicines, food, activities, healthcare and complaints. One person did not have an epilepsy care plan or risk assessment, although their records showed a history of seizures. The home created the plan during the inspection. The overall rating stayed Good, but Responsive fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good.
Safe independence
People were supported to take reasonable positive risks, including going into the community independently when this was assessed and planned for.
“People were supported to take positive risks which included being out in the community without support from staff.” from the report
Open management
Managers were approachable and used meetings, surveys and audits to gather views and make changes.
“We observed a positive culture, where people spoke with each other and staff with mutual respect.” from the report
Missing epilepsy documentation
needs fixingOne person's records showed a history of seizures, but there was no epilepsy care plan or risk assessment when inspectors checked. The home spoke with the person and put a plan in place during the inspection.
“One person did not have an epilepsy care plan or risk assessment, despite their records identifying they had a history of seizures prior to moving into the service.” from the report
- 01How do you check that epilepsy care plans and risk assessments are complete and kept up to date?
- 02How would you support my relative to take positive risks or go into the community independently?
- 03What training and experience do staff have in supporting people with Korsakov's syndrome and alcohol-related needs?
- 04How are medicines reviewed, and what happens if a medicines error occurs?
- 05How would my relative help shape their care plan, activities and weekly choices?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, accommodation and overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions; at the time, eight of the 22 people were receiving personal care. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 2019 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 House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 2016.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.