• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Emerson Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

129 Wingletye Lane, Hornchurch, Essex, RM11 3AR (01708) 442351

Provided and run by:
Peter Warmerdam

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 19 September 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 16 August 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was conducted by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service, which included notifications they had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted the commissioners of the service and the local Healthwatch (an independent consumer champion for health and social care) to obtain their views about the care provided by the service.

During the inspection we observed care and spoke with three people who used the service, seven relatives, four care workers, the chef, two deputy managers and the registered manager. We looked at five people's care files, five staff files and other records relating to the care and management of the service.

Overall inspection


Updated 19 September 2017

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 August 2017. At our previous comprehensive inspection in April 2015, we found that the service was not always effective. This was because the staff had not received training in epilepsy awareness and mental capacity assessments were not carried out for some people who might lack capacity. This could put people at risk of not receiving appropriate care. Following that inspection the provider sent us their action plans on how to make improvements. We then carried out a follow up inspection in November 2015 and found that the required improvements had been made. We found that staff had received epilepsy training and mental capacity assessments had been completed for people.

Emerson Court is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require personal care for 21 older people, some of whom have dementia. At the time of the inspection, there were 21 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

We found that people were not always safe at the service. This was because the registered manager did not have enough staff to provide safe care, especially at mealtimes. We made a recommendation that the registered manager adopts best practice guidelines for reviewing and deploying the staffing level to ensure people were safely supported at all times.

The service had a robust staff recruitment process which ensured that staff were employed only after they had been checked they were safe to work with people. Staff had also attended a range of training programmes related to their roles. We found that they were aware of how to protect people from abuse. Staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and could be confident that they were provided with regular support and supervision.

People's assessment of needs was completed before they moved in to the service. This ensured that their care needs and preferences were identified and met at the service. There were systems in place to allow people and, as appropriate, their relatives to be involved in the development and review of the care plans.

Staff knew how to ensure people's privacy was protected. We also found that staff were polite, friendly and supported people to be as independent as possible. Each person had a risk assessment which identified possible risks and provided staff with guidance so that they knew how to manage the risks. We found staff were caring, respectful to people, and knew how to deal with safeguarding incidents.

Medicines were safely stored and administered as prescribed by staff who had received training. The service also ensured that people's healthcare needs were reviewed and they had access to healthcare. People and relatives were satisfied with the variety and amount of food provided at the service.

The management of the service was open and transparent with people, relatives and staff having easy access to the deputy managers and registered manager. We also noted that the registered manager actively sought feedback and used the views of people, relatives and staff to improve the quality of the service.