• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Emezzions Care

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

EMEZZIONS CARE Argent House, 175 Hook Rise South, Surbiton, KT6 7LD 0330 330 3283

Provided and run by:
Emezzions Limited

Assessment report published 7 May 2025

On this page

Safe

Good

2 May 2025

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Learning culture

Score: 3

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

 

An incident reporting process was in place which clearly identified actions taken in response to individual incidents. The management team reviewed all incidents that occurred and followed up with staff if they did not adhere to the required reporting and recording process.

Safe systems, pathways and transitions

Score: 3

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Information was gathered from referring agencies and from people, and their families, prior to them starting to receive care, to ensure staff were well informed about their needs.

Safeguarding

Score: 3

The provider worked with people and health and social care partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

 

We saw the provider raised any concerns about people’s safety to the local authority safeguarding team. They liaised with the local authority, the police and health care professionals to ensure people received the support they required to remain safe and protect the safety of others. A safeguarding policy was in place which all staff had access to.

Involving people to manage risks

Score: 3

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

 

Improvements had been made and people’s care records now included detailed information about any risks to their safety and welfare. This included support with physical health and emotional and mental health. Information was included about any triggers or circumstances that could upset the person, and if that occurred how to distract and diffuse the situation. Staff supported people to be more confident and safer when out in the community, whilst acknowledging any risks to their safety. A staff member told us, “I feel care plans and risk assessments give me enough guidance to manage the risk, it helps to understand my service user and their history in an uncomplicated way.” Staff confirmed that people’s risk management plans were updated as people’s needs changed. A staff member said, “Sometimes there are some risks or trends we discover while supporting the service user and we would put them in our daily notes and inform management for updates.”

Safe environments

Score: 3

Staff ensured a safe environment was provided for people. They were aware of what support people required and ensured the environment supported this, for example, staff looked out for any trip hazards. People using the service did not require any equipment aids, however staff were aware of the importance of making sure they were in good working order should they be required.

Safe and effective staffing

Score: 3

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

 

Clear recruitment practices were in place to ensure suitable staff were employed. Staff completed regular training to ensure their knowledge and skills were up to date with best practice. Comprehensive supervision sessions and annual appraisals were undertaken to review staff performance and ensure staff were supported in their roles. Staff felt well supported in their role. One staff member said, “I work with a very good team of staff and management is very supportive.”

 

Where staff performance concerns were identified these were discussed with staff and they were supported to improve their performance and undertake refresher training when needed.

 

Call log data showed that staff were attending on time and staying the required length of time to meet people’s needs. We saw evidence of discussions between the manager and people using the service to agree on times, offering flexibility to accommodate people’s individual needs and routines.

Infection prevention and control

Score: 3

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

 

An infection prevention and control policy was in place. The management team checked staff were adhering to the policy during spot checks and through quality monitoring audits. Staff confirmed they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) to the reduce the risk and spread of infections.

Medicines optimisation

Score: 3

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Clear medicines management processes were in place and staff had been trained on safe medicines administration. However, at the time of our assessment no-one receiving a regulated activity required support with their medicines.