Elizabeth House

Updated 17 December 2024

Date of assessment: 12 March to 16 April 2025.

Reason for assessment: We wanted to check on the provider’s progress in relation to addressing concerns about the quality and safety of care to people and the breaches of regulations we identified at the last inspection in August 2024.

Elizabeth House is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 35 people. The service provides support to older people who may have dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people using the service.

We assessed all quality statements in safe and well-led and 1 quality statement from the effective key question, called Delivering evidence-based care. For quality statements we have not assessed at this assessment, we have used the rating from previous assessments to help calculate the rating of the key question.

The provider had invested in the service by continuing support from an external consultancy service to support the new registered manager. There were 2 registered managers in place to govern the service. However, 1 of the registered managers was not involved in the day to day running of the service. During the last inspection we found breaches in the regulations. There had been improvements to the quality and safety of care people received. The provider was no longer in breach regarding people not receiving person-centred care. However, further improvements were needed to address all breaches of regulation and embed new systems and processes. The provider remained in breach regarding the physical environment, safe managing of medicines and good governance.

This service has been in Special Measures since 7 March 2025 (report publication date) following an inspection in August 2024. The provider demonstrated some improvements have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

Updated 17 December 2024

People and relatives felt people were safe in the service. People were supported by enough staff, who had the skills and experience to support them well. People were protected from abuse and restrictions to people were assessed and planned for, as needed. Relatives told us the home was kept clean and staff followed infection control practices. Relatives consistently fed back to us the home’s physical environment needed improving, both internally and externally and our observations confirmed this. People had been put at risk as a result of the condition of the environment. People did not have extensive feedback about how they were supported with their medicines; improvements had been made since the last inspection, but further work was needed to ensure people were always kept safe. There was mixed feedback from people about the food and people were not always enabled to make choices about their meals. However, people had enough to eat and drink to remain well. People had access to health professionals. Relatives were asked by the management team for their opinions through relative’s meetings. There was mixed feedback from relatives about the level of improvement in the service.