You are here

The Emilie Galloway Home of Rest Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 August 2018

This inspection took place on 28 June and 5 July 2018 and was unannounced. At the last inspection we found one breach of the regulations regarding recruitment practices, and the service was rated as requires improvement in safe and well-led. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do, and by when, to improve the key questions of safe and well led to at least good. At this inspection we found there had been improvements and the breach of regulation had been met. However, the service remains requires improvement in well led, due to minor gaps in record keeping, but the overall rating has improved to Good.

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 kn

Inspection areas



Updated 11 August 2018

The service was safe. Appropriate checks were completed to ensure suitable staff were employed to work at the service.

As far as possible, people were protected from the risks of harm, abuse or discrimination. Risk assessments and risk management plans were in place and helped to keep people safe.

People’s medicines were safely managed and there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

The environment and equipment was safely maintained and infection control practices were safe. Incidents and accidents were well reported and investigated.



Updated 11 August 2018

The service was effective. People had their needs and choices assessed and met. People were cared for by staff that had received appropriate training and had the right skills to meet their needs.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met, and food was homemade and nutritious.

Staff asked for people’s consent before providing care and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s health and well-being needs were met. People were supported to have access to healthcare services when they needed them.



Updated 11 August 2018

The service was caring. People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their independence was promoted.

People were supported to make their own decisions and choices about how to live their lives.



Updated 11 August 2018

The service was responsive. People’s care plans provided staff with information about their preferences and support needs and people were involved in planning their own care.

People were asked for their feedback about the service and this was acted on. There was a complaints procedure in place. Complaints and concerns raised had been investigated and action taken to put things right.

People were properly supported with end of life care.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 August 2018

The service requires improvement in well-led. Systems and processes for monitoring quality had improved but records were not as robust as they should be.

There was good leadership and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.

People and staff were engaged and involved in the running of the service.