Emerson Court

Updated 7 January 2022

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.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Emerson Court 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.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed the information we already held about this service. This included details of its registration, previous inspection reports and any notifications of significant incidents the provider had sent us. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. 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 11 members of staff including five care staff, one domestic staff, one activities coordinator, the deputy manager, the registered manager and two directors for the provider. We also 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 four people’s care records and multiple medicines records. We looked at four 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 spoke over the telephone with six relatives about their experience of the care provided. We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.

Updated 7 January 2022

About the service

Emerson Court is a residential care home which was providing personal care to 17 people at the time of our inspection. All people living at the service were older people, most of whom had dementia. The service can support up to 21 people in one adapted building over two floors. At the time of our inspection one bedroom had been converted to a visiting room so relatives can visit people during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

We undertook this inspection at the same time as CQC inspected a range of urgent and emergency care services in North East London. To understand the experience of social care providers and people who use social care services, we asked a range of questions in relation to accessing urgent and emergency care. The responses we received have been used to inform and support system wide feedback.

People were kept safe. There were systems in place to help protect people from abuse. People’s risks were assessed and monitored. There were enough staff working at the service and recruitment processes were robust. Medicines were managed in a safe way. Infection control practice followed national guidance and sought to keep people safe from infection. Lessons were learned when things went wrong as incidents were recorded and actions completed to keep people safe.

The service worked effectively. People’s needs were assessed in line with the law, prior to their admission. Staff received induction and training, so they knew how to work effectively with people. Staff were supported in their role through supervision and appraisal. People were supported to eat, drink and maintain healthy diets. Staff communicated effectively with other agencies to ensure people received good care. The provider had adapted the building to ensure it met people’s needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s choices were respected, and decisions made in their best interests.

The service was caring. People and relatives thought staff were caring. People were supported to express their views. People’s privacy and dignity were respected, and their independence promoted.

The service was responsive. Care plans were person-centred, and staff knew people’s preferences. People’s communication needs were met. People were able to take part in activities they could enjoy. People and relatives could complain and when they did, complaints were responded to appropriately. The service recorded people’s end of life wishes and worked with other agencies to ensure people were treated with respect and dignity when they approached the end of their lives.

The service was well led. A positive person-centred culture was promoted. People, relatives and staff thought highly of the provider and the management team. The registered manager understood duty of candour and acted appropriately in this regard. Staff understood their roles and the registered manager fulfilled the service’s regulatory requirements. People, relatives and staff were able to be engaged and involved with decisions that affected the outcomes of the service. There were quality assurance systems so the provider could monitor and improve the care people received. The service worked with other agencies to the benefit of people using the service.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for the service under the previous provider (Peter Warmerdam) was good, published on 19 September 2017. This service was registered with us under the current provider on 5 December 2019 and this was the first inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on when the service registered with us.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

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.