Archived: Emerald House

Updated 28 November 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector on both days of the inspection.

Service and service type

Emerald House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced on the first day of inspection and announced on the second day.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information available to us about this service. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse. We sought feedback from the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

The provider sent us a provider information return prior to the inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection-

We spoke with two people who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with the registered manager, the head of care, a team leader, a member of staff and the maintenance manager. 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 could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included one person’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at the electrical installation certificate and spoke with one professional.

Updated 28 November 2019

About the service

Emerald House is a care home providing personal care for up six people with a learning disability, autism and/or mental health needs across two separate units, each of which have separate adapted facilities. At the time of our inspection three people were using the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Everyone we spoke with was positive about Emerald House and the changes that had been made since the last inspection. We observed people and staff had developed good and caring relationships built on trust and mutual respect.

The provider had systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff understood how to keep people safe. They recognised and reported any safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments were in place and medicines were managed safely. Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify and address any patterns or trends to mitigate risks.

Staff were recruited safely and had the appropriate skills and knowledge to deliver care and support to people in a person-centred way. Some staff had worked at the service for a long time and this provided consistency for people.

Care plans contained relevant information about how to meet people's needs and were regularly reviewed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; policies and systems supported this practice.

People were supplied with the information they needed at the right time, were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook support tasks. People were treated with kindness and supported to express their opinion wherever possible.

People had access to a varied and balanced diet. Where required, staff monitored people's weights and worked with healthcare professionals to make sure people received medical attention when needed.

People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. They felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be addressed. Staff told us they were well supported by the registered manager and senior management team.

Checks of safety and quality were carried out to ensure people were protected from harm. Work took place to support the continuous improvement of the service and the registered manager was keen to make changes that would impact positively on people's lives

No one was in receipt of end of life care however, staff had developed positive professional working relationships with healthcare professionals and told us they would make the necessary arrangements to enable people to remain at home at this time, should the need arise.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 19 December 2018) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.