Emmaus House

Updated 27 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection site visits took place on 4 and 19 January 2018. The first day of inspection was unannounced. The inspection team was made up of two inspectors, who were present for both days of inspection, and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience who supported this inspection was a specialist in care for older people and people living with dementia. They spoke with people who used the service and visitors to gather their feedback and observed interactions including the care and support provided in communal areas and with activities.

Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, which included information shared with the CQC and notifications sent to us since our last inspection. The provider is legally required to send notifications about events, incidents or changes that occur and which affect their service or the people who use it. We also contacted the local authority commissioning group and Healthwatch, a consumer group who share the views and experiences of people using health and social care services in England. We used this information in planning our inspection.

Before the inspection, the provider sent us the Provider Information Return. This is information providers are required to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. This contributed to our understanding of the service.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who used the service and three carers. ‘Carer’ is a term used to refer to a relative or friend who provides unpaid support to a person. We spoke with two volunteers, four members of staff, the deputy manager, the operations manager and the manager of the service. We reviewed three staff files, which contained information about training, supervisions and appraisals.

We looked at documentation for three people who used the service, which included care plans, risk assessments and daily records. We also viewed a variety of documentation relating to the running of the service and the provider’s policies and procedures.

We undertook a tour of the premises and, with people’s permission, looked in their bedrooms. We observed interactions between people who used the service and staff. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who cannot talk with us.

Updated 27 March 2018

Emmaus House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is situated in a residential area of Harrogate and is registered to provide support for up to 23 people older people who may be living with dementia. On the first day of our inspection, 18 people were living at the service.

The inspection took place on 4 and 19 January 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced and the second day was arranged in advance.

At the last inspection, in December 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

A manager started at the service in November 2017 and they had applied to the CQC to become the registered manager. The manager was away from work on the first day of our inspection, but was available for the second day. The deputy manager, operations manager and other members of the staff team assisted us throughout the inspection.

Informal quality assurance checks, alongside monthly provider visits, were completed. The manager was in the process of implementing the audit system, which had not been used due to the absence of a registered manager.

People within the service reported feeling safe and staff training and practice supported this. Staff understood potential signs of abuse, their responsibilities to report any concerns and how they would do this.

Detailed risk assessments described the actions required to keep people safe and reduce potential risks. This is a small service with a consistent staff team and staff knew the needs of the people they cared for.

We found medication was stored, recorded and administered safely.

Staff continued to be recruited in a safe manner to ensure their suitability to work within the service. Staff received training in relation to their role and reported feeling well supported by the management team. Support was provided by way of team meetings and supervisions. Appraisals were in the process of being completed.

People reported the food at the service was excellent. We observed a lunchtime meal and noted a relaxed atmosphere with food that looked appetising. People were supported to eat and drink and risks in relation to nutrition were responded to.

We found the environment was immaculately clean and tidy. The dining room had recently been updated and further improvement plans were in progress. The environment was not specifically designed to be ‘dementia friendly’ and would benefit from further consideration to this.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

We received positive feedback about the staff team. Staff were caring in their interactions with the people who used their service and we observed patient and discreet care being provided. People’s dignity was promoted.

Assessments and care plans were completed which contained person centred information. Activities were arranged for people within the service and the manager was in the process of further developing these.

People understood how to make a complaint. There had been no formal complaints within the last 12 months.

A further detailed summary is provided below.