You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

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.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 19 September 2017

The service was not always safe. There were not enough staff to support people safely during meal times.

The staff recruitment processes were robust to ensure that newly employed staff were appropriately checked.

Each person had a risk assessment and staff had knowledge of what abuse meant and how to deal with it.

People received their medicines from staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 September 2017

The service was effective. People received care and support from staff who were trained to meet their individual needs.

Staff supported people to maintain good health and to have access to external professionals when more specialist treatment or advice was needed.

The service acted in line with current legislation and guidance when people lacked the mental capacity to consent to aspects of their care.

People had a choice of food that reflected their preferences and met their nutritional needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 September 2017

The service was caring. People were supported by caring and friendly staff.

Staff treated people with respect and supported them to be as independently as they were able to be.

Staff kept relatives and friends up-to-date and supported people to maintain relationship with them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 September 2017

The service was responsive. People received care and support which was based on their assessed needs and took account of their preferences.

People or their relatives were consulted and involved in their care plans.

People enjoyed and benefitted from the activities provided at the service.

People and their relatives were aware of the processes of complaints and could be confident that their concerns were investigated and responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 September 2017

The service was well-led. The deputy managers and registered manager were accessible and supportive to people, relatives and staff.

There were systems in place to ensure that regular maintenance of the service was undertaken and people's health and safety promoted.

The registered manager used various means to ensure that people, their relatives and staff views were sought and influenced the quality of the service.