We carried out a review of the data available to us about Emmanuel Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Emmanuel Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Emmanuel Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to people living with dementia and or aged 65 and or over. The service can support up to 44 people, at the time of inspection 32 people were living at the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Improvements had been made since the last inspection, however further time was needed for the improvements to be fully embedded. Surveys were taking place to gather people’s views; however, these had not always been fully explored to ensure people’s feedback was used to improve the service. Audits were taking place, but they had not identified some of the issues found by the inspection team that required further improvement.
People told us they felt safe, there was sufficient staff to meet people needs. Risk assessments had been carried out to mitigate the risks to people. The service was clean and tidy. Medicines were managed safely. However, records required further improvement.
Staff received regular training and supervision to ensure they had the skills and support for their role. 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 were supported by kind and caring staff, who knew them well. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained.
Activities were available for people to participate in and these were organised in relation to peoples, hobbies and interests. Complaints had been responded to in line with the providers policies. People’s wishes at end of life had been explored.
We received positive feedback about the improvements the service had made since the last inspection. Staff were positive about the support they received from the management team.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update: The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 23 November 2018).
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.
The care home accommodates up to 44 people in one building across two floors. There were 29 people using the service on the day of inspection. The service provides care for older people and people living with dementia.
The service was registered on 17 October 2017 and this was the first inspection. The inspection took place on 17 October 2018 and was unannounced.
The service has recently appointed a new manager who had applied to register with the Care Quality Commission. The previous manager was still registered at the time of inspection although no longer working at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
Audits had taken place to monitor the quality of the service but actions had not always been taken to resolve any concerns identified. Records reviewed failed to be accurate and contemporaneous in respect of each person. Records did not always state when people had Legal Power of Attorney to make decisions on someone’s behalf. Monitoring charts were not always completed correctly or in detail.
People told us they felt safe, however we saw risks were not always managed to safeguard people from harm. Storage of equipment was not always safe. An accident had occurred previously where inappropriate storage of equipment was a contributing factor. Medication was not always managed safely.
Infection control was well managed and staff had adequate stock of personal protective equipment (PPE).
Staff were recruited safely and received suitable induction and ongoing training. Staff were not receiving appraisals and some staff were not receiving regular supervision. This was being addressed by the new manager.
Where required, people were supported to access health professionals. However, action was not always taken as requested by health professionals. People's care needs were effectively communicated through a system of team meetings and handover meetings.
We received mixed views on the quality of food. We observed the meal time experience and found the food looked appetising and people appeared to enjoy their meals. We saw it was difficult for some people to make choices at meal times.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. However, improvements were needed to help people make choices at meal times.
Staff were supportive in a kind and caring manner. Staff respected people and treated them with dignity.
There was a complaints policy in place and we saw information displayed on how to make a complaint.
The new manager had identified areas for improvement but it was evident further time was needed for these systems to be fully embedded to develop the service.