Archived: Emerson Court

Emerson Court is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require personal care for 21 older people, some of whom have dementia. At the time of the inspection, there were 21 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

We found that people were not always safe at the service. This was because the registered manager did not have enough staff to provide safe care, especially at mealtimes. We made a recommendation that the registered manager adopts best practice guidelines for reviewing and deploying the staffing level to ensure people were safely supported at all times.

The service had a robust staff recruitment process which ensured that staff were employed only after they had been checked they were safe to work with people. Staff had also attended a range of training programmes related to their roles. We found that they were aware of how to protect people from abuse. Staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and could be confident that they were provided with regular support and supervision.

People's assessment of needs was completed before they moved in to the service. This ensured that their care needs and preferences were identified and met at the service. There were systems in place to allow people and, as appropriate, their relatives to be involved in the development and review of the care plans.

Staff knew how to ensure people's privacy was protected. We also found that staff were polite, friendly and supported people to be as independent as possible. Each person had a risk assessment which identified possible risks and provided staff with guidance so that they knew how to manage the risks. We found staff were caring, respectful to people, and knew how to deal with safeguarding incidents.

Medicines were safely stored and administered as prescribed by staff who had received training. The service also ensured that people's healthcare needs were reviewed and they had access to healthcare. People and relatives were satisfied with the variety and amount of food provided at the service.

The management of the service was open and transparent with people, relatives and staff having easy access to the deputy managers and registered manager. We also noted that the registered manager actively sought feedback and used the views of people, relatives and staff to improve the quality of the service.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes inspected. We used the information to answer the five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led? Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments of people had been documented in their care records together with guidance on action to take to protect people. There was documented evidence that staff had been provided with essential training such as first aid and health and safety to enable them to care for people safely.

Staff received training and guidance regarding the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The manager demonstrated to us their knowledge of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the MCA requirements. No recent applications had been submitted.

We checked the premises during our inspection and found it provided a safe and suitable environment for good care to be delivered.

Staff and volunteers had been suitably checked and the provider had an effective and robust recruitment procedure in place.

Is the service effective?

Feedback from people who used the service was limited due to the nature of their dementia. We spoke with relatives and visitors who indicated the service was effective and responsive to the needs of people. One person said, "Everything is good here." One relative said, "The staff are great." People's care needs had been assessed with the help of their relatives and/or representatives. Their choices and preferences were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of these. One staff member said, "We try to accommodate their wishes." This enabled staff to respond effectively when caring for people. Care plans had been prepared in detail. These were up to date and were regularly reviewed.

Is the service caring?

We saw feedback from relatives of people who used the service, which indicated the staff were caring and kind. We observed the staff treating people with respect and dignity. A relative wrote, "This place is always cheerful."

Is the service responsive?

The manager informed us the provision of services and care was regularly reviewed and if there were problems or suggestions made, they would respond. When we needed information regarding the care provided and the management of the service, this was promptly provided by all the staff.

Is the service well-led?

The staff who were present during the inspection were knowledgeable regarding their roles and responsibilities. There were arrangements for monitoring the quality of care provided. The senior care worker said they had been given good support and plenty of training to do the job. Staff were aware of the policies and procedures in place.

The provider had made sure equipment in the service was suitable and that people received their medicines safely. In March 2013 we were concerned that the provider did not have suitable arrangements to ensure staff received professional development, supervision and appraisal. On this visit we found staff were well supported and received a regular appraisal.