Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Koru Care

Elizabeth Homes

67 Hailgate, Howden, Goole, DN14 7ST

Requires improvementpublished 13 January 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
The home was not clean and infection control arrangements were not effective. Risk assessments were missing or not detailed enough, and medicines and recruitment records needed improvement.
Effective?
Good
People received support with food, drinks and healthcare, and staff received training and supervision. Records about capacity decisions, oral care and fluid monitoring needed clearer detail.
Caring?
Good
People had positive relationships with kind and caring staff. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
Responsive?
Requires improvement
People were supported with activities, interests and relationships, but care plans, communication plans and end of life plans did not always contain enough person-centred detail.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management checks had not found or fixed several problems, including concerns about infection control, medicines, risks and care planning. Records were not always stored safely or completed accurately, and a safeguarding incident was not reported to CQC as required.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good support with food and health needs, but important safety, records and management problems.

Inspectors visited on 9 and 14 November 2023. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with four people, nine relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.

The home was not always clean. Some equipment was very dirty, infection control arrangements were not effective, and risks such as unsafe windows were not properly assessed. Care plans, risk assessments and other records were sometimes missing, out of date or lacking detail.

People generally said they felt safe and were happy with the support. Staff were described as kind and caring. People were supported with food, drinks, activities, family relationships and healthcare. However, the overall rating was Requires Improvement because the home had breached regulations relating to safe care and treatment and good governance.

What inspectors praised

  • Kind staff

    People had developed positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw friendly interactions and relatives described staff as caring and compassionate.

    “People had developed positive relationships with staff. We observed people having 'banter' and laughs with staff.” from the report

  • Food and drinks

    People received food and drinks, and feedback about the food was very positive. Fluid monitoring records needed more information where they were used.

    “The food is beautiful there. The cook is great. I have eaten there with [Name], and it's always been lovely.” from the report

  • Activities and relationships

    People were supported to take part in activities and interests, and to keep in touch with family and friends.

    “People were supported to participate in activities and their interests.” from the report

  • Support with healthcare

    The home supported people to attend healthcare appointments and worked with health professionals. Relatives were kept updated where appropriate.

    “People were supported to access health care appointments.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Cleanliness and infection control

    serious

    The home and some care equipment were very dirty. Arrangements for towels, laundry and protective equipment did not reduce the risk of cross-contamination.

    “The service was not clean. Equipment used to clean the service was dirty, this included brushes and mops.” from the report

  • Risk assessments

    serious

    Some people did not have robust risk assessments, and plans were not always reviewed when needs changed. Window risks, including cracked or single-pane glass, had not been assessed.

    “Risk assessments and care plans were not always in place or did not contain sufficient detail to ensure guidance was available to staff to mitigate risks to people.” from the report

  • Care planning

    needs fixing

    Care plans were not always up to date or personalised enough. There was also limited evidence that people's end of life wishes had been discussed and recorded.

    “Some care plans lacked person-centred detail.” from the report

  • Management checks and records

    serious

    The home's audits had not identified or dealt with several problems. Some records were incomplete or left in communal areas where they could be accessed by others.

    “Governance systems in place had not always been effective.” from the report

  • Medicines practice

    needs fixing

    Some medicines were not given separately when required, and medicines were carried around the building without the related risks being assessed. Some as-needed and variable-dose instructions were not recorded in protocols.

    “Medicines that were required to be administered before other medicines had not always been administered separately.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make the home and care equipment clean, and how is infection control now checked?
  2. 02Have all residents had their risk assessments and care plans reviewed, including risks from windows and changes in their needs?
  3. 03How are medicines now stored, carried and administered, including as-needed and variable-dose medicines?
  4. 04How are people's end of life wishes and communication needs discussed and recorded?
  5. 05What action has been taken to improve governance, protect confidential records and report safeguarding incidents to CQC?

This was a full inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous Good rating was published on 17 May 2018 under the former provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 2024 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Elizabeth Homes

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. January 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Elizabeth Homes →

  2. February 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated
  3. May 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  4. January 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  5. July 2022

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 July 2022.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Nearby

Other care homes near Goole

All in East Riding of Yorkshire

Sandhall Park

Goole, DN14 · 3.8 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 14 months agocare home