Archived: Emmanuel Care Home

Updated 10 March 2017

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 of Emmanuel Care Home took place on 18 and 19 January 2017 and was unannounced. One adult social care inspector carried out the inspection.

Information had been gathered before the inspection from notifications that had been sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Notifications are when registered providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur. We also requested feedback from local authorities that contracted services with Emmanuel Care Home. We reviewed information from people who had contacted CQC to make their views known about the service.

We received a ‘provider information return’ (PIR) from the registered provider. A PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with ten people that used the service, three relatives and the registered manager. We spoke with three staff that worked at Emmanuel Care Home. We looked at care files belonging to three people that used the service and at recruitment files and training records for four staff. We viewed records and documentation relating to systems for the running of the service, including quality assurance, management of medicines and the safety of the premises. We also looked at equipment maintenance records and records held in respect of complaints and compliments.

We observed staff providing support to people in communal areas of the premises and we observed the interactions between people that used the service and the staff. We looked around the premises and saw communal areas and people’s bedrooms, after asking their permission to do so.

Updated 10 March 2017

The inspection of Emmanuel Care Home took place on 18 January 2017 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on 30 September 2015 the service met all but one of the regulations we assessed under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At that inspection the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ because the registered provider was in breach of Regulation 15: Premises and equipment. This was because the registered provider had not ensured the premises were adequately maintained or cleaned. We also made three recommendations for the registered provider to address regarding the dining experience, activities and quality assurance.

Emmanuel Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care for a maximum of 37 people. The conditions of registration were recently changed by the registered provider when the service stopped providing nursing care. As a result the service now provides care for older people and people living with dementia, but does not provide nursing care. There were 28 people using the service at the time of this inspection.

The service is situated in a quiet residential area of Hessle on the outskirts of the city of Kingston-Upon-Hull and consists of a large traditional house with a modern extension to the rear of the property. There is a car park on site for visitors. All bedrooms are now used for single occupancy and some have en-suite toilet facilities.

The registered provider was required to have a registered manager in post. On the day of the inspection there was a manager that had been in post for the last six months. 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. The manager had recently been interviewed following their application to become the registered manager and was awaiting the outcome.

At this inspection the registered provider had made sufficient improvements to show they were no longer in breach of any of the regulations and had met the recommendations we made. The premises were safely maintained and there was evidence in the form of maintenance certificates, contracts and records to show this. Refurbishments had taken place and an on-going programme of maintenance continued so that eventually all of the premises would be upgraded and redecorated.

The dining experience had improved for people and they received adequate nutrition and hydration to maintain their health and wellbeing.

A new activities coordinator was now employed and people had the opportunity to engage in some pastimes and activities if they wished to in order to pass the time of day. Activities were usually designed to stimulate the brain, keep skills going and stretch the imagination.

There was an effective system in place for checking the quality of the service using audits, satisfaction surveys, meetings and good communication. Improvements in systems were made to ensure they effectively checked people’s experience of the care they received and relatives were satisfied with the quality of care provided.

People were protected from the risk of harm because the registered provider had systems in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns. Staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of managing potential and actual safeguarding concerns. Risks were managed and reduced on an individual and group basis so that people avoided injury, harm or abuse.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and we saw that rosters accurately reflected the staff that were on duty. Recruitment policies, procedures and practices were carefully followed to ensure staff were suitable to care for vulnerable people. The management of medicines was safely carried out and infection control practices were safe.

People were cared for and supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and appraised regarding their personal performance. People’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected. Staff had knowledge and understanding of their roles and responsibilities in respect of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and they understood the importance of people being supported to make decisions for themselves. The registered manager ensured legislation was appropriately used to reach decisions made in people’s best interests where they lacked capacity.

The premises were suitable for providing care to older people and those living with dementia. We were told that additional work was planned to further improve the environment (provide activities and occupation) so that it was entirely suitable to meet the needs of those living with dementia.

We found that people received compassionate care from kind staff. People were supplied with information relevant to their needs, were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook care and support tasks.

People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected. This ensured people were satisfied and enabled to take control of their lives.

People were supported according to their person-centred care plans, which were regularly reviewed. People had very good family connections and support networks.

There was an effective complaint procedure in place and people had complaints investigated without bias. People that used the service, relatives and their friends were encouraged to maintain healthy relationships through frequent visits, telephone calls and sharing of information.

The service was well-led and people had the benefit of a culture and management style that was positive and inclusive.

People had opportunities to make their views known through formal complaint and quality monitoring formats. People were assured that recording systems used in the service protected their privacy and confidentiality, as records were well maintained and were held securely in the premises.