We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Emilie Galloway Home of Rest on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Emilie Galloway Home of Rest, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The Emilie Galloway Home of Rest had remained COVID19 free. Staff had received Infection Prevention Control (IPC) and COVID19 specific training. This included training on how to put on and take off Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with government guidance. The registered manager also carried out regular competency observations and refresher training with staff to ensure high levels of IPC measures were maintained. The home had plenty of PPE available and PPE stations were located throughout the building and near entrances/exits to enable people entering or leaving the building to have easy access. Any essential visitors to the home had temperature checks, completed a risk assessment and had access to Lateral Flow (LFT) testing if required. Any new admissions to the home had been carried out in accordance with government guidelines.
The registered manager was aware of the latest government changes regarding visiting to care homes. People actively used mobile phones and IT to have telephone and video calls to their friends and relatives. A snug (Pod) area was available for face to face visiting. Visitors could access this by an external door and did not have to enter the home, a Perspex screen divided the visitor from the person to ensure there was no risk of infection transmission. The registered manager had consulted people living in the home to seek their opinion on when and how to open the home to visitors. Everyone living at the home had been in agreement that they were wanted to continue with window/pod visits. It had been a collective decision to not have visitors into the home at this time. The manager met with people regularly to seek their opinion and review how changes to visiting would be implemented. Garden visits would also be facilitated if and when people requested them, with access to a summer house in bad weather. Good levels of communication had been maintained. People and relatives had been consulted and kept updated on the latest IPC and PPE guidance.
The home had designated housekeeping staff to maintain appropriate levels of cleanliness. COVID19 specific cleaning schedules had been implemented alongside regular cleaning regimes. This included regular cleaning of bedrooms, communal areas, bathrooms and toilets. All staff were involved in ensuring high levels of cleanliness were maintained throughout the home, this included regular disinfection of frequently touched surfaces of the home for example door handles, dining room condiments, walking frames, medication keys and trolleys.
Any new admissions to the home were tested prior to admission and required to isolate in accordance with government guidance. People were reminded to social distance and measures had been implemented to support this including less people sitting in the dining area and smaller group activities.
The Emilie Galloway Home of Rest is a ‘care home’ and is also known locally as ‘Tweed’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. People had care needs relating to dementia or older age. Most people were independently mobile and some people needed support with their personal care needs. The home had four floors with access provided via a passenger lift, stairs and stair lifts. There were communal lounges and a dining room on the ground floor. A range of seating was available in the gardens to the front and rear of the property. The property was within walking distance to a range of shops and other local facilities.
The Emilie Galloway Home of Rest can accommodate up to 21 people. There were 21 people living in the home at the time of our inspection. Each person had their own private room, most with en-suite. There were shared bathroom facilities for people that required more specialist bathing equipment such as a walk-in shower or wet room.
The service had a registered 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.
As far as possible, people were protected from harm and abuse. Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and what they should do if they thought someone was a risk. The home was clean, and people were protected from the risks of poor infection and prevention control because staff new what they needed to do to prevent the risk of infection.
There were enough experienced and suitable staff to support people to stay safe and to meet people’s identified needs and preferences. Staff reported incidents and accidents properly, and if these did occur, the registered manager made sure they were properly investigated. Risk assessment and risk management practices were robust.
People were supported to eat and drink enough. Food was nutritious and well prepared, and people gave us positive feedback about the quality of the food. People could access the healthcare they needed to remain well, such as the GP or district nurse, and their medicines were managed safely.
People were able to express their choices and preferences and these were respected and promoted by staff. People led the lives they wanted to and staff supported people to go out or join in activities in the home in the least restrictive way possible. People maintained contact with those people that were important to them, such as family members or friends.
People experienced compassionate care that met their needs, and were supported by kind, caring staff. People had their privacy and dignity respected, and staff knew what to do to make sure people’s independence was promoted. Staff were supported with training, supervision and appraisals to help them develop the skills they needed to provide good quality care. People experienced person centred care and were supported to make their end of life care wishes known. People’s end of life care plans were detailed and staff did all they could to help people in the way they wanted, when they were at the end of their lives.
People were always involved in their care reviews as much as they wanted to be, and had their care needs regularly assessed. People experienced care and support that was in line with current guidance and standards. Staff made sure they worked within the organisation and with others, to make sure people experienced effective care. The building and environment was well adapted to meets the needs and preferences of the people who lived there.
People were asked for their consent before any care was given, and staff made sure they always acted in people’s best interests. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These provide legal safeguards for people who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety or unable to make informed choices about their care.
People had access to a complaints process, and said they would be happy to raise a complaint if they ever needed to. Complaints were fully investigated by the registered manager and the proper action taken to prevent the same thing happening again. There had been no recent formal complaints, but the registered manager and staff knew what action to take if a complaint was made.
The registered manager was well regarded and passionate about providing good quality care for people. Staff felt supported and people’s views were sought and acted on to improve the service. Regular checks and audits were carried out to make sure people experienced good quality care and staff provided good support. The registered manager had notified the CQC of events that were reportable. The registered manager and staff had taken action and had made most of the improvements that were needed, so the service was now rated good overall. Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The Emilie Galloway Rest Home (also known as Tweed) is registered to provide accommodation for to up to 21 people who require support with their personal care. The service specialises in supporting older people who require minimal support with their personal care. On the day of our inspection there were 19 older people living at the service one of whom was in hospital. Some people were independent and some were living with early on set dementia. The service is spread over four floors with access provided via passenger lift; stairs and stair lifts, there are communal lounges and a dining room on the ground floor. A range of seating was available in the gardens to the front and rear of the property. The property has a small car park and is within walking distance to a range of shops and other local facilities.
The service had a registered 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.
At the last inspection on 21 and 22 October 2014 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we identified improvements were needed in relation to some quality assurance audits and some record keeping.
Recruitment practices were not robust. Due consideration had not been given to following good practice recruitment guidance and legislation. Therefore the provider could not be assured some staff were safe to work with people. This is an area of practice that requires improvement.
The staff recruitment files had not been audited therefore the provider had missed the opportunity to identify shortfalls and take corrective action. Audits of three care plans took place twice a year and shortfalls identified had been addressed. However, other care plans had not been checked to see if they contained the same shortfalls. People’s daily records detailed that people who wanted to be; were checked at two hourly intervals throughout the night. Records of two hourly night checks were made at the end of the shift. Therefore the provider could not be assured an accurate contemporaneous record had been maintained. Records of the food people had eaten had not been routinely maintained so would not be available if needed by healthcare professionals. These are areas of practice that we identified for improvement.
People’s individual needs were assessed and care plans were developed to identify what care and support they required. People were consulted about their care to ensure wishes and preferences were met. One person commented “We get interviewed all the time to see if there is anything else we want”.
The service had a relaxed and homely feel. Everyone we spoke with spoke highly of the caring and respectful attitude of a consistent staff team which we observed throughout the inspection.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health care services. Staff worked with other healthcare professionals to obtain specialist advice about people’s care and treatment. Staff supported people to arrange healthcare appointments and were available to accompany them to appointments when needed. A visiting healthcare professional told us “Communication from the home is good; the manager is good and handles everything. There is a good communication of resident’s needs”.
A variety of nutritious food and drink was provided and people told us they enjoyed the meals. Lunch was an enjoyable and sociable occasion. People had a choice of meals and a range of alcoholic and soft drinks were available. One person told us “The food is excellent”. Another person commented “The food is really good”. The chef was aware of people’s preferences in relation to food and told us how one person liked to have porridge in the morning but “Not too thick”.
People and staff felt the service was safe and there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. One person told us “I can use my call bell if I need help”. Staff were trained to recognise abuse and knew how to report any concerns. A staff member told us “We do our best to make sure people are safe”.
People were encouraged to express their views, attend residents meetings and complete satisfaction surveys. Feedback received showed people were satisfied overall, and felt staff were friendly and helpful. People enjoyed the activities on offer and were encouraged to remain independent.
People were supported to get their medicine safely when they needed it. Medicines were ordered, stored and disposed of in line with good practice guidelines.
Staff were skilled and experienced. They felt fully supported by management to undertake their roles. They were given training updates, supervision and development opportunities.
Staff considered peoples capacity using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) as guidance. People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed.
People and staff found the management team approachable and professional. One person commented “They are very well organised here. It’s like a first class hotel. You couldn’t ask for more”. Another person stated “Everything is good here. We can ask for anything we want”. A staff member told us “I like (registered manager’s name), they are very good and they listen. If something's not right they will do things to make it better they are very good at their job”.
We found one area where the provider was not meeting legal requirements. You can read what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
This inspection took place on 21 and 22 October 2014 and was unannounced.
Emilie Galloway Rest Home, known as Tweed, provides accommodation and care for up to 21 older people. Some are independent and require minimal support; others need support with looking after themselves, visiting nearby shops and attending appointments. There were 21 people living at the home on the day of our inspection.
The home is run by a registered manager who was present on the second day of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage this service. Like registered providers they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how a service is run.
People said they felt safe living in the home. One person told us. “I feel very safe living here.” All staff had attended safeguarding adults at risk training. They had knowledge of the safeguarding procedures, and were clear about what to do if they had any concerns.
Risk assessments had been completed as part of the care planning process. They evidenced the staff provided a safe environment, which enabled people to make choices about how they spent their time, in the home or the community.
People told us there were always enough staff to support them. One person said, “Staff are always available, they do anything we ask.” Staff told us they felt there were enough staff working in the home to ensure people were safe and received the care and support they wanted. One staff member said, “There are always enough staff here. If someone has an appointment, like today, or they want to go shopping, we organise extra staff so that people are not disappointed.”
Pre-employment checks were completed before staff were employed, including references and full employment history. This ensured only suitable staff were employed.
Medicines were managed effectively. Risk assessments had been completed for people who were responsible for their own medicines, and staff ensured that people who required assistance received their medicines in the correct dosage and at the right time.
Staff told us they felt supported to deliver safe and effective care. One staff member said, “We have regular training, which makes sure we are up to date.” Staff demonstrated they knew people well and felt they supported people to maintain their independence.
The registered manager and staff showed an understanding of their responsibilities and processes of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). A DoLS application had been made to restrict one person’s freedom to leave the home on their own in order to maintain their safety. Staff went with them when they wanted to go out for a walk or to the shops.
People told us the food was very good. The chef met people every Saturday morning to discuss dishes they liked or disliked, and changes were made to the menu if needed. People said there were always at least two choices, and were seen to enjoy lunch.
People had access to health care professionals as and when they required it, and it was clear from the visit records that this was maintained until treatment had been completed. One person said, “We only have to speak to a member of staff and a doctor would be called.”
People had personalised care and were involved in reviewing the support they received. They told us, “Staff always ask if we are happy with the care provided and there is always someone around asking if we need anything.” Staff said, “We like to let people make decisions about the care we provide” and, “We wait for them to ask for help, or make suggestions, rather than make decisions for them.”
Complaints procedures were in place and we saw that they were displayed in the entrance hall. People said they knew about the complaints procedure, but had not needed to use it. The registered manager told us the home operated an open door policy and people were able to talk to staff at any time.
A range of activities were available for people to participate in if they wished. People said they decided what they wanted to do and some preferred to remain in their rooms.
People told us the registered manager was approachable and supportive. One person said, “The manager and deputy are both helpful. They have helped me to find a reclining chair.” Another person told us, “This is the next best place to being in my own home.”
The provider had quality assurance systems in place to audit the services provided at the home. These included audits of incidents and accidents, medicines and care plans.
We found that people using the service were involved in decisions about the care and treatment they received. Care plans were detailed and person centred. Staff were knowledgeable about what abuse was and what to do if they suspected it. There were sufficient numbers of staff with the appropriate skills to meet the needs of people using the service. We found that there was an effective complaints system available.