CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Emerson Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and incident reviews were found to be safe, although some diabetes and choking risk assessments needed more detail.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans reflected their choices. Staff were trained, people received support with nutrition and healthcare, and consent and best-interest processes were in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw people treated with dignity and compassion and supported to make choices about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs and interests. Activities, visits, complaints handling and end-of-life planning were in place.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new management team was visible and approachable. Audits, feedback and incident reviews were used to identify and make improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some diabetes and choking risk records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection after concerns were received about safeguarding alerts. Inspectors visited during inspection activity from 31 October to 4 November 2022, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe and that there were enough trained staff. Medicines were managed safely, infection control arrangements were suitable, and safeguarding concerns were dealt with appropriately. People and relatives described staff as kind and caring.
Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities and visits, and relatives were kept informed. The new management team had made positive changes and used audits and feedback to improve the home.
Some diabetes and choking risk assessments did not contain enough detail. The registered manager acted straight away and updated them. The overall rating was Good, and all five areas received a Good rating, unchanged from the previous inspection published in September 2019.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Recruitment checks and staff training were also in place.
“There were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed staff supporting people with patience, dignity and compassion.
“The staff are very kind and caring, especially to my [person] who has Dementia.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, communication needs and preferred routines. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Care plans included people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in activities, trips and family visits. Inspectors saw a range of activities taking place.
“An activities team were in place to provide a variety of activities for people.” from the report
Active management
The new management team was visible and approachable. Audits, feedback and reviews of incidents were used to make changes.
“A range of quality assurance audits were in place to ensure oversight.” from the report
Risk assessment detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not include enough information about diabetes management and choking risks. The manager updated these records immediately, and inspectors said no one had been harmed.
“Further information such as people's specific blood sugar levels and what to look out for in a choking incident were needed.” from the report
Medicine stock awaiting return
minorA large amount of medicine stock was waiting to be returned to the pharmacy. It was stored safely, and the provider said a changed contract had delayed collection.
“An excessive amount of medicine stock was waiting to be returned to the pharmacy.” from the report
Dementia floor changes
needs fixingSome planned dementia-friendly changes were not complete. Not all memory boxes were being used, and bedroom pictures to help people find their way were not in place.
“However, not all were being used and bedrooms did not include pictures to help people find their way.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the diabetes and choking risk assessments, and how are staff told about those changes?
- 02Has the excess medicine stock now been collected by the pharmacy, and how is returned medicine monitored?
- 03What is the timetable for the planned dementia-friendly improvements, including bedroom pictures and use of memory boxes?
- 04How is the home reducing its use of agency staff, and will the same agency staff continue to be requested?
- 05What learning came from the safeguarding alerts that prompted this inspection?
This inspection looked at all five key questions and infection prevention and control; it was prompted by safeguarding alerts, and the previous Good ratings from 2019 remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Emerson Grange was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective management and no breaches reported.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. It was an unannounced visit on 14 August 2019. The inspection looked at all five areas used by CQC: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment and training files, accident records, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff were kind and respectful, care was personalised, and the home had systems to monitor quality and respond to concerns.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and the risks affecting people, including falls, pressure damage and mobility problems.
“People and relatives said that people felt safe.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines records were accurate and staff had their competence checked. Inspectors also found enough suitably skilled staff to meet people's needs.
“Records relating to medicines were accurate, complete and up to date.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff asked for consent and promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
“People, relatives and staff confirmed that people were treated with dignity, respect and that their independence was promoted as much as possible.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and needs. Staff reviewed plans when people's needs changed and supported a wide range of activities.
“Care plans holistically reflected people's needs in a personalised way and were very detailed.” from the report
Open management
The home had regular audits and used feedback, complaints and suggestions to improve care. People and relatives could raise issues through meetings, surveys or direct contact.
“We found an open and transparent culture.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What has changed since the first inspection in August 2019, and when was the home last inspected?
- 02How do you assess staffing levels each day when people's needs change?
- 03How are medicines checked now, and how are families told if a medicines error happens?
- 04How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and making changes to menus or activities?
- 05How do you support people with dementia, communication needs and end of life wishes?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection of the whole care home and all five CQC question areas; it was the first inspection since the service registered. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 September 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Emerson Grange
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 August 2018.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.