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

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

Our judgement

People who use the service experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights. The service would improve if risk of infection in the environment was monitored and managed by more effective systems and policy and practice for hand hygiene was reviewed.

User experience

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. We saw they had the support of a care worker. We spoke to them and had lunch with them. They confirmed that they were staying at the service for a few days and stayed very regularly. We saw that before lunch they had been out to local shops 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.

We asked the person if we could look at their care records and they agreed. We saw that they had well organised care records. There was up to date information about their personal care needs, communication and language, medication and leisure and education and continuing contact with family. Plans for care and support were centred on the person as an individual and how they liked to do things. They were not just a list of tasks for workers to carry out. We saw that the risks posed to the person's safety and well being by their condition were assessed. The agreed plan for managing each risk was also 'person centred' and balanced their safety with their right to take risks and develop independence. We saw that there was a review of the person's care needs undertaken last in November 2011 in response to a change in medication. We saw daily and nightly welfare records made for the duration of the persons stay at the service.

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. They were not on duty on the day of our visit. We saw that they held the NVQ in health and social care at level three. They had undertaken short training courses in person centred planning, equality and diversity and safe physical intervention in crisis. They had undertaken updated training each year on safe administration of medication.

We asked the person whose care we followed if we could see their bedroom. We saw that it was minimally furnished for a short stay. The room was clean and had what was necessary for comfort and contained some personal belongings. We saw that the adjacent shared bathroom was undergoing refurbishment while we were there.

We looked around the communal rooms and kitchen used that day by the person whose care we followed. We saw that these facilities were either not clean or had been ineffectively wiped including where food was stored and prepared. There was build up of grime from hands on door frames and light switches and plugs including in the kitchen. This suggests poor hand washing practice. We asked the manager about this. She told us that there was a cleaning schedule carried out by support workers and that windows including the inside glass were cleaned every month by the maintenance worker.

We have asked the provider organisation to review policy and practice for hand hygiene and the cleaning arrangements for shared space in the home. These spaces were used by a constantly changing group of eight young people at a time. The cleaning regime should to be improved for hygiene and prevention of infection.

We asked the young person whose care we followed if they enjoyed staying at the service. They told us " it's alright- a bit noisy sometimes." We asked if the workers were alright and they told us " yeah."

Other evidence