- Care home
Emmanuel House Care Home
Assessment report published 30 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 25 and 29 September 2026.
Emmanuel House Care Home provides residential care for up to 44 older people, including people living with dementia and people with mobility, nutritional and behavioural support needs. There were 36 people living at the home at the time of our visit.
There was evidence of kind and compassionate care from staff who knew people well and understood their individual needs and preferences. People, relatives and staff frequently spoke positively about the caring culture within the home. Care records reviewed showed detailed guidance for many people, including information about mobility, nutrition, behavioural support, falls prevention and end of life wishes. Staff worked with healthcare professionals when people’s needs changed, and we saw examples of referrals being made to specialist services. However, people's independence and choice were restricted by the environment. There was insufficient suitable seating available to meet people's needs, meaning people were not always able to choose where they spent their time within the home. This was a breach of Regulation 15, Premises and equipment.
We identified a number of concerns relating to safety, staffing, oversight and the environment. Environmental observations identified poor maintenance and infection prevention issues. Concerns about staffing levels were consistently raised by people, relatives and staff. During the inspection we observed periods with limited staff presence in communal areas and received mixed feedback regarding call bell response times and timely support.
Medicines management was organised and staff demonstrated safe practices. However, the provider’s governance systems had not always identified or acted upon environmental, safeguarding and regulatory concerns in a timely manner. Records showed some safeguarding incidents had not been appropriately reflected within notification systems. Monitoring arrangements for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) conditions and wider quality assurance processes required strengthening.
Despite these concerns, the registered and deputy manager were described as approachable and supportive. Overall, people experienced caring support from committed staff, but improvements were needed to ensure governance, staffing, safety and environmental systems consistently protected people and promoted positive outcomes.
People's experience of this service
People told us they liked living at Emmanuel House and many spoke positively about the kindness and support they received from staff. One person described a member of staff as “really brilliant. She looks after me” and told us they enjoyed the food, the choices available and the view from their room. Another person told us, “We are looked after, very good.” Staff were observed interacting respectfully with people throughout the inspection, offering reassurance, encouragement and support during daily routines and transfers. One staff member told us, “I love the residents and staff. It feels so rewarding and I enjoy helping others and making a difference.”
Relatives were largely positive about the care provided and said staff responded when concerns were raised. One relative told us, “They are very keen and proactive in taking action when needed.” Another described the difference between Emmanuel House and a previous service saying it was “incomparable.” Relatives described the home as having a “nice, homely feel” and said the registered manager, deputy manager and seniors were approachable and willing to work with families and professionals when people’s needs changed.
People’s individual preferences and life histories were reflected in care records. We saw examples of personalised support, including information about preferred routines, favourite foods, hobbies and important relationships. Care records showed staff understood how to support people living with dementia, anxiety and other complex needs using reassurance, meaningful conversation and distraction techniques tailored to the individual.
The lunchtime atmosphere was relaxed and unrushed. People were offered choices of food and drinks and staff provided support where needed. We observed staff encouraging people during transfers from wheelchairs to chairs and taking time to reassure them. Some people told us they enjoyed the meals provided and records showed the service accommodated individual dietary needs and preferences.
However, some people and relatives described delays in receiving support at busy times. One person told us they had to wait for assistance on occasions, while relatives commented on limited staff presence in communal areas and raised concerns about stimulation and meaningful occupation for people. We also observed periods where people were seated without engagement and opportunities to enhance social interaction and activity provision.
Overall, feedback from people and relatives showed many valued the caring relationships they had developed with staff and appreciated the homely atmosphere of the service. Observations demonstrated warm and respectful care, although some people’s experiences were affected by delays in support, limited activity opportunities and staffing pressures at busy times.