Elizabeth Court, Sutton, St Helens.Elizabeth Court in Sutton, St Helens is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, dementia, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 18th December 2019 Contact Details:
Ratings:For a guide to the ratings, click here. Further Details:Important Dates:
Local Authority:
Link to this page: Inspection Reports:Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.
18th December 2018 - During a routine inspection
Elizabeth Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home offers purpose built accommodation for to 44 people. At the time of our inspection, there were 41 people living in the home. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. During this inspection we identified multiple breaches of regulations 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 17, 18 and 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because we identified concerns with the delivery of person centred care, dignity and respect, safe and appropriate care, safeguarding people from abuse, the recruitment of staff, staffing levels, staff support and the governance arrangements at the home. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded. During our visit, we found people’s needs and risks were not properly identified or managed. The majority of information in relation to people’s care was generic and meaningless and staff had little guidance on how to provide safe and appropriate person centred care. This meant people’s support was not always provided in a safe or dignified way and records showed that people did not always received the support they needed to maintain their well-being. There was also little evidence that staff were keeping track of people’s progress on a regular basis to ensure the support provided continued to meet their needs. There was a lack of any meaningful and consistent activities to interest and occupy people and they sat for the majority of the day in the communal lounge with the television playing in the background. People told us there was not much to do at the home. We found that some incidents of a safeguarding nature had not been appropriately identified, responded to, documented or reported in accordance with local safeguarding procedures and the legal requirements of CQC. This meant the provider did not have a robust system in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Some people’s care was not always provided in such a way as to protect them from neglectful or degrading treatment. Furthermore some of the language used by staff to describe people’s needs was not always respectful or considerate. People’s ability to make decisions about their care was not assessed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For instance some people had bed rails on their beds and deprivation of liberty safeguards in place without any evidence that they had consented to this or evidence that their capacity to consent to this had been explored. There was no evidence that any best interest decision making had been properly undertaken or that other least restrictive options had been explored. The capacity assessments that where in place in some people’s care files were generic and contrary to the MCA legislation designed to protect people’s human rights. The provider had a formal method for determining the number of staff needed on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. We found however that the provider had not applied this method correctly. This resulted in the number of staff on duty being incorrectly determined. And during our visit we observed that the number of staff on duty was insufficient to me
20th April 2016 - During a routine inspection
Elizabeth Court is a purpose built care home situated in a residential area of St Helens. It is registered to provide care and support to 44 people living with dementia. This was an unannounced inspection carried out by an Adult Social Care inspector. During the inspection we spoke with eight people who lived at the service, seven members of staff, five visitors, the registered manager and the assistant manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The service did not always make sure that people’s capacity was determined and actions that meet best interests put into place. We saw that covert medicines (medicines that are hidden) were not managed in a manner that maintained people’s rights. The service sent us information following the inspection that showed what actions they were taking to address this. People told us they were well cared for. They looked relaxed and comfortable in the home and with the staff who supported him. Everyone we spoke with complimented and spoke highly of the staff who supported them. Comments included, “The staff are all kind.” “They can’t do enough for you”. People and their relatives told us that they had been included in planning and were in agreement with the care and support being provided. We saw that people had an individual plan which outlined some of the ways staff were to support individuals. Staff we spoke with recognised the importance of knowing people’s routines, so that people received personalised support. Staff took the time to get to know people and supported them in undertaking activities. We saw a number of activities taking place during the inspection, including a party for the queen’s birthday that was well attended. The staff told us they were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the safety or welfare of an individual. They told us they would be confident in reporting any concerns to management. The service had completed training and an award in relation to end of life care. As a result they had undertaken a number of arrangements to assist bereaved families appropriately.
13th February 2014 - During a routine inspection
We spoke to different people about this service to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced, what they thought and how they were cared for. We spoke to people using the service, two relatives and three members of staff. We spent time observing people using the service, to see how they were cared for and how staff interacted with them. People said that, “this home is wonderful now” and the staff were, “very attentive and caring.” People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care needs. Relatives said that staff always had time to talk to them and involved them in planning care. We saw that staff were particularly caring, and cared for and supported people according to their individual preferences and needs. We saw that there were enough, suitably trained staff on duty at all times. We saw that the provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the service provided and that records were managed appropriately.
6th March 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
We spoke with several people who lived in the home. Due to varying degrees of dementia most people could not express their experiences of the home. However nobody raised any direct concerns about the way their medicines were managed. We spoke with two relatives about the home and they said they felt relative was well cared for. They had no concerns about the home and the way medicines were handled. Overall we found improvements had been made and people were given their medicines safely.
28th December 2012 - During an inspection in response to concerns
We carried out an inspection at Elizabeth Court in response to concerning information received by the Care Quality Commission with regards to three particular residents at the home. The information received raised concerns of a safeguarding nature. Elizabeth Court offers both a residential and a nursing care service; each service is delivered on a separate floor. The concerning information provided to us was related to people who lived in the nursing care unit and the level of care they were being provided. During the inspection we found no evidence to support the concerning information or the safeguarding concerns raised. We looked in detail at each of the concerns raised and reviewed the care files for those individual people. We also spoke with their family members and care staff with regards to the details of the concerns. During our inspection we spoke to people who lived in both areas within the home and their relatives. We invited them to share with us their views and experience of the care they received. A relative told us “My family member is happy here; I visit everyday and find they are clean and comfortable. My family member is always treated with dignity and respect by the staff who care for them.” We looked at three care files. These were well organised with a person centred approach. The care plan had been broken down into ten sections. All care plans had a monthly review.
20th December 2012 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
We observed part of the morning medicines round and spoke with several people about their medicines. However due to varying degrees of dementia we were not able to obtain the direct views of people who live in the home. Overall we found some improvements had been made since our last visit but found further improvements are needed to help make sure medicines are always administered safely.
4th October 2012 - During an inspection in response to concerns
We observed part of the morning medicines round and saw medicines were administered to people in the main living areas of the home. Due to varying degrees of dementia we did not obtain the direct views of people who live in the home. Overall we found medicines were not safely handled and improvements are needed.
18th April 2012 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
Relatives spoken with said: “Every 12 months we have a review, I think we look at the care plan?”, “We have always been satisfied with the care “, “The noise in the unit can get you down, it must be terrible for the carers”, “The carers are very good, can’t fault any of them. Don’t feel there is enough though” “They are run off their feet. They will do anything for you”, “The manager is lovely. They are all good”, “If I had any problems I would just knock on the office door, wouldn’t hesitate”, “practically every day I have to tell the staff my husband is wet”, “My husband was sent to hospital without any notes”, "one resident shouts all day, it’s not fair on the others”, “since this manager took over it has gone down hill”, “the manager has said some insensitive things to me and others”, “there’s not enough activities for them (service users)”, “He’s settled down now, he has got used to the people” and “He’s happy and content and I am too”.
2nd November 2011 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made
People were given their medicines at appropriate times. If medicines were refused, or if people were asleep, then staff would re-offer the medicine later. Staff made sure enough time was left between doses where necessary. We heard the nurse talking to people kindly and patiently when administering medicines. Medicines were stored securely at all times and were only accessible to trained staff. This protects people living in the home and helps to prevent the medicines from being misused.
1st January 1970 - During an inspection in response to concerns
People using the service were very complimentary about the care and support they are receiving. Some of the comments were, “I enjoy it here.They are interested in what I say and do" "It's a nice place place they look after you" and "It's very nice, best of all I like the food, they cook it for me and do the washing up.What more do you want?". Other comments were, "The staff are very good and helpful" "I can have a laugh and a joke with the staff, it's marvellous" and some comments from relatives were, " we have been more than pleased, with all of the staff" "the staff are really helpful and I am always kept informed" and " I believe people are treated with respect, I have never seen a bad worker". During our visit to Elizabeth Court we overheard and observed staff ask people’s permission to go into their rooms, be respectful towards people, respect and uphold their privacy. We saw care workers being responsive to people's requests and interacting with them. Care workers were familiar with individuals and their daily routines.
|
Latest Additions:
|