You are here

Emscote House Adult Residential Services Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 1 February 2012
Date of Publication: 19 March 2012
Inspection Report published 19 March 2012 PDF


Inspection carried out on 1 February 2012

During a routine inspection

When we visited the service on 1 February 2012 the registered manager told us that eight people were staying for a short break at that time. Seven people were out for the day as was their usual routine when they were at their family home.

We followed the care of one young person who was at the service that day including during the day. The manager told us that the person stayed regularly at the service. We saw they had the support of a care worker. We spoke to the person and had lunch with them. We saw that before lunch they had been out to local shopping centre with their support worker. They were actively engaged in computer and craft activities after lunch. We saw and heard that support workers helped them to make choices about food, drink and activity. They were helped to prepare their own lunch.

We saw that they had well organised and up to date care records. These included care plans that were individual to them. Risks posed to the person by their condition were identified and there were agreed plans for managing them. Plans and guidance for support workers balanced the person's safety with their right to take risks and enjoy independence.

We spoke to a worker who was on duty that day supporting the person whose care we followed. They knew the person well and were able to talk to us about the plan for their care and how risks were managed.

We looked at the training records of the keyworker to the person whose care we followed. We saw that they held the NVQ in health and social care at level three. They had also undertaken regular short training courses while in the employment of the provider organisation. These included training in safeguarding adults from abuse and the risk of abuse.

We saw that the person whose care we followed had their own bedroom. It was clean and held sufficient furniture for comfort for a short stay at the service. The bathroom that they shared with other people was being refurbished while we were there.

We looked around the communal rooms at the service including the open plan kitchen used by people. These facilities were not sufficiently clean to protect people from the risk of infection. We have asked the provider organisation to improve hygiene practice at the service.

The manager told us that the basic staffing level at the service was one worker to two people. If a person required two workers support for their safety and care this level was provided when they stayed at the service. The manager said that there was a duty manager designated to run each shift. There were at least two workers awake on duty each night.

This level of staffing was confirmed by a support worker that we spoke to on the day of our visit. We saw that day that the person whose care we followed had one to one support from workers. We asked the person if they enjoyed staying at the service. They told us " it's alright- a bit noisy sometimes." We asked if the support workers were alright and they told us "yeah."