Emmanuel House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care records showed detailed assessments and care plans covering mobility, nutrition, falls, behaviour, continence, skin integrity, eating and drinking and mental capacity. Staff used recognised assessment tools including skin integrity, falls screening, dependency profiles and risk assessments to identify and review risks. Records demonstrated regular reviews and updates following incidents, changes in need and professional involvement.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care plans contained clear guidance for staff about supporting people with falls risks, nutrition, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, pressure care and behaviours of distress. Records showed referrals to falls teams, dietitians, mental health services and other healthcare professionals when people's needs changed. Staff followed guidance relating to pressure relief, repositioning, food and fluid monitoring, sensor mats and behaviour support. Nutritional risks were monitored through regular weighing, nutritional assessments and food and fluid charts with actions identified when concerns arose.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Records demonstrated staff worked with GPs, social workers, mental health teams, falls teams, dietitians and other healthcare professionals to support people whose needs had changed. Staff described the importance of communication, and handovers were completed twice daily using structured information-sharing processes. Staff spoke positively about teamwork and supporting one another to meet people’s needs. One staff member told us, “Teamwork is so important.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People had access to healthcare professionals and there was evidence of referrals when concerns were identified, including for falls, mental health needs, nutrition and behavioural support. Care plans promoted good nutrition and hydration and included guidance for monitoring people at risk of weight loss or dehydration. However, evidence showed limited activity opportunities, a vacant activities coordinator post and concerns from relatives regarding stimulation and meaningful occupation. Inspection findings also identified that some opportunities to promote wellbeing and engagement were limited for people who spent long periods in communal areas with access to other areas of the home limited or restricted.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care records demonstrated ongoing monitoring of accidents, falls, food and fluid intake, weight, behaviours of distress and health conditions. Staff reviewed risks following incidents and made referrals for additional support when required. Care records showed regular evaluation of people’s nutritional, mobility and behavioural needs, and observations identified ongoing monitoring of those at greater risk. Staff demonstrated an understanding of incident reporting and monitoring processes, including use of falls charts and communication systems.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Mental capacity assessments were available within records and covered specific decisions, including care and treatment, sensor mats and medicines. Care plans demonstrated a least restrictive approach and emphasised supporting people to make choices wherever possible. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of mental capacity, consent and restrictive practice during discussions. One staff member explained whilst they offered encouragement “but we can’t force [Name]” when describing support provided to a person who chose not to follow staff guidance.