Queen Elizabeth Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. However, in some areas such as activities people did not always feel listened to. People and their relatives told us they felt the care provided by staff was person centred. One person told us about a review held with the home and a number of professionals to determine the next steps in their support. One relative told us, “They are very good at adapting, and they always discuss and inform me of any changes.” Although people were positive regarding their direct care, we received mixed comments regarding the activities provided and how personalised these were to people’s interests. One person told us they enjoyed joining in the exercises, going out on occasions and using the garden in the summer. Other people who chose or needed to remain in their rooms told us they did not receive support with activities. One person told us, “There’s no activities brought to me but there’s a nice girl [staff member] who comes to say hello.” A relative told us, “I’m here every day and I don’t think there are any in room activities.” In other areas we found activities were personalised where possible such as the choice of music for exercises and the destinations for outings. Residents meeting minutes showed activities provided to people were discussed and reflected people enjoyed the different options provided. The registered manager told us the activities team had recently been expanded which would support them in developing what was offered.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The provider understood people’s wishes and the importance of families being involved in people’s care. They ensured there was good communication with relatives and informed them of any changes in their relatives’ care. Relationships had been built with both health and social care professionals who supported the service. The registered manager told us building these relationships had been a priority. They felt this had increased understanding of what support the service could offer and they had gained the confidence of professionals supporting the service. Professionals we spoke with told us they had seen improvements in the care offered and felt the service now made use of external services to support people’s health and social care needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was provided to people in an accessible format. Menus and activity programmes were all produced using both pictorial and written descriptions to aid understanding. People had communication plans in place which highlighted the support they required with communication and how information should be provided. Whilst this information was personalised we found for one person with sensory needs additional detail regarding their communication needs would be beneficial. In other areas we found staff communicated effectively with people. Staff recognised when one person was showing signs of anxiety. They communicated well with the person to distract them and offered alternative things for them to engage with. The provider had clear signage around the home to help people orientate and find their way around the different areas.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The registered manager was visible in the service and spoke to people to check they were happy with their care. People and their relatives told us they would raise and concerns and were encouraged to do so. One person told us, “Their attitude is, if there is anything that is worrying you, let them know. I’d not be worried about going to the office.” A relative said, “I’ve already complained about something when my relative first arrived. It all got sorted. I wouldn’t hesitate to say something, I know them all in the office.” Records showed complaints were taken seriously, investigated and responded to in a timely manner. Where required, action was taken to reduce the risk of concerns happening again. The provider had a complaints policy in place which detailed how concerns could be raised, timescales for a response and how information would be handled.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People confirmed they had access to healthcare support when they needed it. One person told us, “You can see the doctor when you want to, and the chiropodist comes in as well.” One relative told us, “We have had a referral to the audiologist. The optometrist has examined her eyes. There is a chiropodist.” Records showed people were referred to a range of professionals as required including with the community mental health team, dieticians, speech and language therapy and dentist. Professionals told us referrals were made appropriately and when advice was provided this was followed. Examples of this included where people had been assessed as being at risk of choking by the speech and language therapy team. Recommendations were followed regarding the consistency of the food people required and staff had received training in line with this.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The support people received was tailored to their needs. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity and understood people required differing levels and types of support in different areas. One staff member told us, “We are accepting of everyone here, residents and staff.” The registered manager told us that in addition to online training they ran smaller, more focussed group training sessions. They had included equality and diversity as a discussion area to widen staff understanding.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s end of life care plans lacked detail regarding the care they wished to receive. Whilst basic information was recorded there was a lack of evidence to show people had been supported to discuss specific details. The registered manager told us they were aware this was an area which needed more work and planned to support the team to look at ways they could approach this. Nursing staff had received training in supporting people at this stage in their life and were aware of the support people needed to ensure they remained pain free.