Emerald Agency

Updated 28 February 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. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was conducted by one inspector.

Service and service type:

Emerald Agency provides support and personal care to people with a learning disability living in their own apartments or within a shared house in Ryde. Not everyone required a personal care service and at the time of our inspection fifteen people were receiving personal care from Emerald Agency. 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:

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit. This is because the service is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed the information, we had received about the service, including previous inspection reports and notifications. Notifications are information about specific important events the service is legally required to send to us. We also considered information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we gathered information from:

• Three people using the service.

• Ten people’s care records.

• The registered manager.

• The deputy manager.

• Four support staff.

• Records of accidents, incidents and complaints.

• Audits and quality assurance reports.

• Records of recruitment, training and supervision.

Updated 28 February 2019

About the service:

Emerald Agency is domiciliary care agency and supported living service. They provide support and personal care to people living in their own apartments or a shared house in Ryde. Not everyone using Emerald Agency received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection fifteen people were receiving a regulated activity from Emerald Agency.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People were happy with the care they received from the staff at Emerald Agency. One person said, “I’m very happy with everything.”

• People told us they received safe care. People were supported by consistent and suitably trained staff.

• People received support to take their medicines safely and as prescribed.

• Risks to people's well-being and environmental safety were recorded and updated when the circumstances changed.

• People's rights to make their own decisions were respected. Staff supported people to make choices in line with legislation.

• People were supported to access health and social care professionals if needed.

• People's dietary needs were assessed and where required, people were supported with

their meals.

• People were supported to be as independent as possible and encouraged to develop life skills.

• Care plans were detailed and person centred. People were involved in deciding how they wished to be supported and in reviewing their care plans when needed. Information was available in a format they could understand.

• Staff were kind, patient and responsive to people's needs. People were treated with dignity and staff respected their privacy.

• People knew how to complain and were confident that if they raised concerns, the management would act promptly to address these.

• People and staff were fully engaged in the running of the service.

• The management team had effective quality assurance systems in place.

• The service worked well with other partners, organisations and commissioners.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (report published 23 May 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.