Emerald Training and Medical Staffing

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Complete records about people’s care and treatment were not always kept. People using the service had complex needs, such as mental health, schizophrenia, behaviours that challenge and substance misuse. When reviewing people’s care records, we found there were multiple templates and versions of care plans and risk assessments which also contained older information that should be archived. Therefore, it was difficult to ascertain which records were current and relevant to people’s needs.

We discussed this with the registered manager who acknowledged our concerns. The registered manager took prompt action and updated the care plans during the assessment. Whilst this action was welcomed, care records were still not sufficient in detail and did not provide sufficient detail about people’s needs, the support they needed and risks to their health, safety and wellbeing.

For example, one person had Asthma and COPD, however there was limited detail about how these conditions impacted them on a daily basis. During the visit to the supported living service, we observed the person’s breathing was deep and laboured, however there was no information in the care plan about this, the reasons why this was and the symptoms for staff to look out for should their breathing worsen.

The care record for another person stated they had a mild Learning Disability. However, there was no further information about this in their care records.

The language used was often a list of instructions and tasks staff needed to do and lacked guidance on how people should be supported safely in accordance with their needs and preferences. For example, one person’s care plan stated, ‘Staff to prompt and assist [person] to attend to their personal hygiene’ with no further guidance provided on how this should be done.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service engaged with health and social care professionals to support people with their health needs when needed.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s care records contained limited information in relation to their communication needs and guidance for staff on how to best communicate with people. Information was not always provided to people in a way that was accessible and tailored to their individual needs. For example, one person’s care records stated they needed to hold letters close to enable them to see and read properly. Although the care plan did contain some pictorial information, it was mainly in written format and not available in other formats that may be suitable such as large font.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There was a lack of measures in place for people to give feedback about their experiences of care and support. Records showed some feedback was obtained via surveys, however these were not dated. Although the overall feedback about the service was positive, there was a concern raised about the food. However, there were no records which showed this had been followed up and actioned.

The registered manager told us there had been no complaints received about the service. However, there was no complaints file in place to ensure there was effective oversight and learning from concerns raised by people and relatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment. People were supported to access healthcare services when needed.

People’s care was not always tailored in response to inequality in experience or outcomes. Care records for people contained limited information on their equality and diversity needs. Care records listed people’s religion, however there was no information detailing if and how people were supported with their cultural and religious beliefs. There was no further information recorded which showed if people had any protected characteristics and the support they may need to ensure there was no discrimination and human rights requirements were adhered to.

Equality and diversity policies were in place and staff had completed equality and diversity training.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their life. No one at the service currently received end of life care. The registered manager told us, if and when required, they would work with people, family members and other healthcare professionals to ensure people's end of life wishes were met and dealt with in a dignified manner.