CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Emmanuel Care Services Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks such as medicines, self-injury, self-neglect, weight management and community access were assessed. Inspectors also found enough staff, safe medicines systems and appropriate safety checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Effective. It says staff worked with health and social care professionals and provided training to meet people's needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Caring. Inspectors described staff as knowing people well, respecting their individuality and putting their wishes and rights at the centre of support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had activity plans and were supported with interests, daily living skills, family contact and communication. Care planning focused on people's goals and preferences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and approachable management, effective audits and checks, staff who understood their roles, and systems for using feedback to improve the home.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 July 2022. One inspector observed care, spoke with a relative and two staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people had choice and independence, took part in activities, and were supported by staff who knew them well.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches about safe care and treatment and good governance. At this inspection, the provider had made improvements and was no longer in breach of those regulations.
Choice and activities
People were supported to pursue their own interests, take part in activities and access the local community. Staff also encouraged everyday skills such as baking, gardening and making drinks.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report
Communication
Staff used individual communication passports and understood how each person communicated. Information was provided in formats people could understand.
“Staff had good awareness, skills and understanding of individual communication needs, they knew how to facilitate communication and when people were trying to tell them something.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines records matched the stock checked by inspectors. Staff supported medicines in a way intended to promote independence and avoid unnecessary use.
“Staff maintained a medicines administration record (MAR) to record the support they provide people with their medicines.” from the report
Stable, visible leadership
Management was visible and approachable, and staff said they felt supported and able to raise concerns. Audits and checks were used to identify issues and improve care.
“Governance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's particular risks, including any risks linked to medicines, self-injury, self-neglect or going out?
- 02How would you support my relative's preferred way of communicating, and would you create or update a communication passport?
- 03What activities and everyday tasks could my relative choose, and how often would they access the local community?
- 04How would you involve our family in care planning, decisions and reviews?
- 05How would you respond if there were an accident, incident, safeguarding concern or complaint involving my relative?
This inspection assessed Safe, Responsive and Well-led and the principles of Right support, right care, right culture; the report does not give separate current ratings for Effective or Caring. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 August 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, February 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but gaps in risk planning, activities and quality checks remained.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 19 December 2019. The inspector spoke with one person, a relative and two staff members. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff records and management documents.
The home provided care and accommodation for up to three people with learning disabilities and mental health needs. Inspectors found that people felt safe, received kind care and were supported with their health, choices, independence and medicines.
However, some risks were not properly assessed or covered by clear plans. Activities were not always interesting or stimulating. The systems used to check quality did not find these problems. The home was in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The home had the same overall rating at the previous inspection, although Effective and Caring had improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said they were happy or felt safe. Staff respected people's preferred names, privacy, dignity, culture and faith.
“Staff understood people's diverse needs and supported people in a caring way.” from the report
Safer medicines
Medicines were locked away, records were complete and stock matched the records. Staff prepared and recorded medicines separately for each person.
“Medicines were now managed safely.” from the report
Support for health
People were supported to eat and drink enough, maintain their health and attend appointments with health and social care professionals.
“People were supported to access healthcare services and had been registered with the GP.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and were encouraged to do tasks they could manage, such as preparing meals or tidying their rooms.
“People's independence was promoted.” from the report
Community risks were not fully planned
seriousOne person went into the community independently and attended a place of worship far from the home. The person's risk assessment did not include important information or clear guidance for staff.
“Risks to people were not always identified, assessed and had appropriate risk management plans in place.” from the report
Activities were not always meaningful
needs fixingThe home offered some activities, but inspectors found that these were not always interesting or stimulating. This was especially important because some day-centre support was due to end.
“We found that activities people were engaged in were not always interesting or stimulating to them.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not identify missing or inadequate risk plans. Inspectors said this could allow poor standards to continue without being noticed.
“The systems in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service was not robust and did not always drive improvements.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to risk assessments for people who go into the community independently?
- 02How do staff know where a person is going and what support or safety guidance they need?
- 03What structured activities are now available, particularly if day-centre placements end?
- 04How do you check that activities are interesting and suitable for each person?
- 05What quality checks are now in place to make sure risk plans and other care records are complete?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the inspector reviewing care, accommodation, records, staffing and how the home was managed. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 2020 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 Emmanuel Care Services Limited
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Emmanuel Care Services Limited →
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Emmanuel Care Services Limited →
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Greenwich
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 £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.